1921-02-17

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Statement of superannuation and retiring allowances in the Civil Service from January 1, 1920, to December 31, 1920.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Fifty-third Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.-Hon. C. C. Ballantyne.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. James Mclsaac for an address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, resumed from Wednesday, February 16.
Mr. ANDREW ROSS McMASTER (Brome) (Resuming) :: Mr. Speaker, I
must first thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), who, in the temporary absence from the Chamber yesterday of the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), was leading the House between half past five and six o'clock, for his kindness in calling it six o'clock when it was only 5.45, in order that I might have a better opportunity of connected discourse.
I think it must have struck the members of this House and the people of this country that no serious attempt has so far been made by speakers on your right, Sir, to advance any argument against the amendment to the Address proposed by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. King). We had yesterday, as I have already said, a most interesting and inspiring address upon the League of Nations, but really no attempt was made to answer the resolution which preceded from this side of the House. So I am therefore driven back to discuss the remarks made by the Prime Minister, and this to the best of my poor ability I shall endeavour to do.

The Prime Minister takes this position. He says:	This House was elected by a
majority of the electors some few years ago; we have a majority in the House, and as long as we have a majority in the House, elected by a majority of the constituencies in this country, I propose to carry on. That, as I understand it, is the constitutional position which he takes. Now, first of all, this vote will show, and not until the votes are counted will it be demonstrated whether the Prime Minister has a majority of the votes in this House. That is something yet to be ascertained.
Secondly, has the Prime Minister a majority of the votes in this country? Why, just before the last election there was an Election Act passed for the purpose of disfranchising all those who might be suspected of political tendencies against the Prime Minister and his party, and of doubling up all those votes that would likely be in their favour. Soldiers' wives, soldiers' mothers and soldiers' sisters were all given the vote to the exclusion of other people just as deserving, and I remember in my riding noting with some amusement that soldiers' sweethearts were not given the vote, because although a soldier under our law can have only one wife he might have, and often had, many sweethearts. But that, after all, although important, is not as important an another point which I propose to prove before the House, and which I believe will be accepted by all .unbiassed minds, whether in the Chamber or outside of it.
The proposition which I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is this:	That there was
at the time of the last general election an undertaking made by and on behalf of the Government that it would, if returned to power, only hold office for the time of the war and during demobilization. There was ' the agreement made, and I propose to prove it out of the mouths of ministers of the Crown at that time. Hon. Mr. Carvell, who now occupies the position of chairman of the Railway Board, was a Unionist minister from the province of New Brunswick. During the course of one of the sessions of 1919 the question of the formation of the Union Government came up, and this is what Mr. Carvell said:
I can only say that when I entered this Government-I am not going- over the very, very long and somewhat unpleasant conditions which existed between the month of April and October 1917, possibly another occasion may arise when they can be discussed-I did so after the most mature deliberation, which many of my good old friends know all about, and nobody
5i
knows so well as does my hon. friend for Shelburne and Queen's-I did so for one specific purpose and for a specified time. The purpose I am happy to say, has been achieved! The time has not yet expired. During the election in the Province of New Brunswick 1 issued a letter to my constituents and to the people of our Province setting forth the fact that the Government was to be of an equal number of former Conservatives and former Liberals, for the purpose of carrying on the war and finding recruits for our army, and that it would continue for the duration of the war and a reasonable time thereafter for demobilization. Demobilization has not yet been completed, and so far as I am concerned my contract has not expired.
Just as soon as demobilization was completed Mr. Carvell resigned from the Government because he regarded his contract as having expired.


Mr. P. F. MARTIN (Halifax):: What followed when his contract was terminated?


Andrew Ross McMaster: He was given the high quasi-judicial office of chairman of the Railway Commission, and his appointment to that office emphasizes the value of the citation which I have just made. Now, we have such a thing in this country as ministerial responsibility, and that responsibility is a joint one. When a minister of the Crown makes a declaration on a question of high importance such as was the question mentioned in this letter, he binds not only himself but his colleagues as well. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) was one of the colleagues of Mr. Carvell when he made that statement, and he was bound thereby. That is the statement of the present Prime Minister as well as of Mr. Carvell, and it was a direct undertaking of the present Prime Minister that this Government-he says that the present Government is a continuation of the last; that is his contention-would, as soon as demobilization was over, cease to exist, and an appeal would, of course as a matter of consequence, be made to the people. There were others who spoke in the same language. I quote from a speech of the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) delivered at Winnipeg on October 27, 1917. Said he:
I have not sacrificed' my liberalism. My liberal principles are part of myself and will stay with me until I die. But this is not the time to quarrel over political view-points on domestic issues. The whole issue, the sole reason for the union of parties is to win the war.
Before I go further I wish to protest, as I have protested before in this House and elsewhere, against the assumption that there was any difference in the desire to win the war between people who were

Liberals and those who were Conservatives at the time of the last election. We differed as to methods but not as to aim and object. And the oft-repeated assertion, repeated at that time and, I am sorry to say, even since, that it was a question between the Union Government, to win the war, and the Liberals, to abandon the boys in the trenches, was one of the most ungenerous and wicked perversions of the truth ever perpetrated by a political party for their own political ends. Its ungenerousness was shown by the fact that among the Liberal leaders of the day was the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), who was languishing in a German prison. Besides that, the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux), Mr. Graham, Mr. Oliver, all had boys at the front who then or shortly after were to fill the graves of heroes who had died for their country. The sons of our friend the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) and of Mr. E. M. McDonald, as well as those of many other Liberals, were fighting in the trenches then. The member for Maisonneuve suffered the loss of his only boy. But still we were taunted at that time that we were not in favour of winning the war. How. wicked was that statement is shown also in the fact that it divided race from race, province from province, religion from religion. I remember some sessions ago that the hon. gentleman who now occupies the high position of Prime Minister, stated on the floor of the , House, when the Liberals were laughing at some unconsciously amusing thing he had said, that our interest in the war was measured by our laughter. I protested then, and I protest to-day when he says that the great issue was one of winning the war. We differed in regard to methods, it is true, but I would not have this House forget that the method proposed was one of selective conscription, and that after this method had been put into force, only a few months had elapsed before the same Mr. Carvell, one of the leading members of the Government at that time, said that by a round-about, clumsy method they had been able to secure only 30,000 men.
Now, after this digression, made necessary by the repetition of what I regard as an unvenerable falsehood, I return to my argument as to the understanding between the parties. I quote again from that former champion of Western Liberalism, the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization. He spoke at Vancouver on

the 31st of October, and in the Vancouver Sun he is reported as having said:
I'm for plain speaking, and I intend so to speak. I am a Liberal, and when all is over I intend to remain a Liberal, because I believe in Liberal principles. I have been fighting- Toryism all my life, and I propose after the war to take up that fight just where I left off.
We have heard of the warrior taking his rest with his martial cloak around him. It is about time that this warrior of Western Liberalism took off his cloak, and began to fight. But so far we have not seen any symptoms of his entering upon the engagement. But not only were these statements made by those men high in the councils of the Unionist party, but the people so understood. Let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, the undertaking which was signed by those members of the primaries in Vancouver, who were voting for delegates to the Unionist Convention and who nominated one of my friends at whom I am now looking, the member for one of the seats of Vancouver City:
I, tile undersigned, do hereby pled'ge my support and influence to the present Unionist Government and the policy enunciated by them, i. e., the immediate and continuous enforcement of the Military Service Act, 1917, the mobilization of all our resources, the taxation of wealth, and the prevention of profiteering, and I agree to support the candidate selected at the Convention.
That was the view expressed by people connected with the formation of the Union* Government; they were the views held by supporters of the Union Government in British Columbia. Now, let us proceed to another province, and again let us quote from the words of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization. He is reported in the Regina Leader of Dec. 17 as saying:
Keferring to his own position, Mr. dalder said that it had been suggested that he had been duped by the Tories and that he would stand as a cipher when he got down to Ottawa.
I want to tell you, he said, that Calder has not been duped by the Tories. I have never stood in the position of a cipher, and I do not propose to do so now. I have a very clear conception of what I am going into the Union Government for, and what I am going to do. With reference to the suggestion that it was still the same old Borden Governement and the Government of the big interests, Mr. Calder asked his audience whether they thought it could be the same Government with F. B. Carvell in it and with Mr. Maclean as a member, and whether it could be the same Government which included Alexander Crerar and General Mewburn; and I want to tell you that you don't know Mewburn yet. He is a fine fellow.


Some Hon.   GENTLEMEN@: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is a matter of interest, Mr. Speaker, to know that the member for East Hamilton, so happily characterized in that paragraph, has left the Union Government; that the member for Marquette has left the Union Government; that Mr. Carvell has left the Union Government; I am not sure whether Mr. A. K. Maclean has yet resumed his seat on our side, I know his seat is here and waiting for him. An hon. gentleman beside me states he is going to be here.
Now I know it is somewhat tiresome when a lawyer cites evidence-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not, Mr. Speaker, expect the gentlemen sitting to your right to enjoy the reading of that evidence. As a matter of fact I am not speaking for their pleasure, but I trust for the country's profit.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Sir Thomas White, speaking at Brockville, said-


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is the member for Leeds.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I understand he is not the member for Leeds. I understand he has accepted an oifice of emolument, and I am perfectly in order when I refer to him, with all the dignity that should be attached to a knight, as Sir Thomas White.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman must refer to him as the member for Leeds, and I hope he will adhere to the well-established rule in that regard with respect to every hon. gentleman.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I understand that I am not allowed to discuss the Speaker's ruling. His Honour will admit that I am one of the most obedient of the flock over which he presides, but he will allow me to state that the constitutional authorities differ somewhat from the view which he takes. However, the gentleman who occupied some time ago the position of member for Leeds, and whose occupancy of that position is now a matter of dispute and discussion, said on the 17th November, 1917:
Union Government is an accomplished fact today. It was born of the will of the Canadian people, the majority of whom have long and earnestly desired that party strife should cease, that National Government should be formed for the period of the war.
The Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie), speaking at Guelph on the 2nd October, 1917, said:
I believe in an union at the present time of all political forces for the prosecution of the war, irrespective of all political parties. In the past I have been looked upon as a strong party man but since May last I have publicly and' privately advocated a cessation of party strife, and I intend to continue in this course until the end of the war. It must not, however, be supposed that by pursuing this course that I have changed my Liberal principles, I have not done so.


Mr. DUFF:: The war is still on.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Again, there was a meeting of Conscriptionist Liberals held in Hamilton, Ontario, on November 2, 1917, where the following motion was passed:
That whereas, since the notice calling this convention was sent out a Union Government has been formed in which Liberals throughout the Dominion have joined this convention recording its belief that the formation of a Union Government for the duration of the war was highly desirable and in the best interests of ' Canada, and believing that thereby the share of Canada in the conduct of the present world war will be best served and the Government of the country most effectively and satisfactorily carried on during the period1 of the war, expresses its approval of the action of the Liberal members of the present Union Government in entering the same.
I do not think I should have to labour the point any more. It is absolutely true that the Liberals-and there were a certain number, a large number-who supported Union Government in 1917, did so under the direct promise, under the direct statement, that they were supporting a government for the duration of the war. I would not give any narrow or technical interpretation to these words "during the duration of the war." I would be prepared to extend that to cover demobilization. To be perfectly fair I would give the expression the largest interpretation. The Prime Minister's argument was that the Government elected in 1917 differed in no way from the government of 1904, let us say, which was elected on the question of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The cases are not at all similar. Had there been a sharp line of division, let us say within the Liberal party, on the question of the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and if Sir Wilfred Laurier gone to gentlemen opposite and asked their concurrence for the special purpose of putting through legislation for the building of that railway, then the conditions might have been somewhat similar. The Prime Minister is not comparing things that are the same in nature. The only political situation we have had approach-

ing that which confronted the Canadian people at the time of the election in 1917 was the election in Canada prior to Confederation when Brown and certain Liberals of Ontario-quite a number of Liberals of Ontario-joined Macdonald and certain Tories of both Ontario and Quebec for the purpose of putting through Confederation, although Dorion and other Liberals in Quebec opposed him. That is apolitical situation which approximates somewhat the political situation of 1917. And what happened then ? It is very, very interesting, Mr. Speaker. As soon as Confederation was an assured fact Brown resigned, but Howland and MeDougall did not-they hung onto office. The name of Brown will be admired and revered in this country after generations have passed who have forgotten that there ever was a Howland or a MeDougall. We have with us today some Howlands and some McDougalls, although they bear different names. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the aim and objects of his Government are the same as those of the preceding administration. Well, if I wanted to be unkind I might admit it. I might say that the aim and objects of Union government were to retain power, and the aim and objects of this Government are to retain power. But let us be kinder. What were the declared and ostensible objects of Union government? The declared and ostensible objects of the government were to carry on, in a manner which they judged efficacious, the fighting of the war which was to maintain democracy and to crush privilege and autocracy. The declared aim of this Government is to hold on to office-to maintain autocracy and to maintain the protective principle in the tariff, which is to maintain privilege and autocracy as well.
In passing let me call attention to an error of fact into which the memory of the Prime Minister led him. In his remarks he stated that the Government had had large majorities on every vote last session.
I see a ray of hope there, Mr. Speaker, because if the Prime Minister thinks a majority of five large, what sort of majority is he counting upon in this vote? If my recollection is right, the Government majority last session was rarely more than twenty-five, and on one important occasion it dropped to five. But, after all, for a party which went into power with a majority of about seventy, majorities in the twenties or under were certainly small majorities.

Now, let us come to another phase of the subject. The Prime Minister has formed a Government which he describes as a National Liberal and Conservative Government-to put it in more popular phrase, a National Grit and Tory Government, which is about as wise and reasonable as "National Wet and Dry Government." I speak without the slightest personal experience, but as a matter of fact I understand it is quite possible for those who have been very dry to sometimes get very wet, and the day after the change they are very, very dry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I hear sounds of "hear, hear" from the other side. I am glad my confirmation comes from that direction rather than from my own side of the House. <
The Prime Minister has arranged this Government with its long name of National Liberal and Conservative Government, and he has induced to join that Government the hon. member for Yarmouth and Clare (Mr. Spinney).
Now, what is a political party, Mr. Speaker? A political party is an association of men who have joined themselves together for the purpose of advancing the public interest of certain principles of policy which they hold in common. That is the sense of Burke's definition, and I think it is as good a definition as we have of what a political party is. What is the Cabinet? The Cabinet is the executive committee of such a party, chosen from men who have seats in this or the other House. It stands to reason that if men form a party they have to have similar views-not, of course, on all questions, that would be impossible, but on the main leading questions before the people a fortiori a Cabinet must have like similarity of views, and a Cabinet which has men in it of diverse views cannot give sound, constitutional, strong government to a country.
Now, if there is one thing that the Prime Minister has enunciated it has been the-protective principle. It is true there has not been that same bold front presented in all parts of the country. When he visited the beautiful Eastern Townships-part of which I have the honour to represent-he made a speech in the thriving industrial town of Sherbrooke and emphasised the maintenance of duties,-in other words, the maintenance of protective principles. When he got out to Winnipeg, after speaking about tariff revision and the report to be made thereon by the Minister of Fin-

ance (Sir Henry Drayton), he uttered a pious hope that the duties would he lowered. As far as my recollection serves me, there was no such pious hope expressed^ him in the 'city of Sherbrooke. But, after all, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been a pretty consistent protectionist.
Now let us hear what his Minister without portfolio from the province of Nova Scotia (Mr. Spinney) said as late as last year, within a few months of his joining the Government of the Prime Minister. He stated:
I can only say that I regret that at this staee my hon. friend found it necessary to introduce his amendment, which comes at a very inopportune time. It has for its purpose, I assume the downfall of the Union Government, or their return to the country to get a fresh mandate from the people. I do not wish to criticise, but as I am an honest follower of the Union party, I must point out this fact, that since they have been in power I have followed them as a free trade or rather as a revenue tariff Liberal. I am that to-day, but I do not believe that any tariff for other than revenue purposes could be satisfactorily dealt with in this country at the present time.
Our progressive friends may declare for free trade. They have come out for free trade, but I do not see where they propose to raise the enormous revenue to carry out the heavy responsibilities resting upon this country to-day. It means raising between $500,000,000 and $600,000,000 at least. You cannot get that by direct taxation in this country. The people of Canada are not educated up to that. Neither are the financial resources of the country capable of responding to direct taxation. To my mind the idea is absolutely absurd. We have
to raise a certain percentage of our necessary revenue through customs taxation, entirely aside from any question of protection. The Minister of Finance has maintained his reputation for honesty, and I believe he fully intends to give this country what he has promised in the way of tariff revision. When that revision comes in, if it should have any earmarks of protection, if this Parliament is in existence at that time, they can bank on my opposing any such tariff.
The hon. member for Yarmouth and Clare, the minister without portfolio from the province of Nova Scotia, need not wait until the Budget comes down; he has his answer in the Address from the Throne, for that address consecrates the principle of protection which he pledged himself to oppose. There is just one of two things for my hon. friend to do; he should tell us that he has honestly changed his opinion and no longer stands for the principle of tariff for revenue, but for the principle of tariff for protection, and after telling us that he should go down by the sea and ask the men in his constituency whether they approve of his change of mind.


William Duff: They would not.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If he does not do that, then it is for the Prime Minister to explain how, when he is nailing the colours of protection to the mast, he invites a free trader, such as the hon. member for Yarmouth and Clare, to form one of his Cabinet. I grant that the member for Yarmouth and Clare brings respectability, high business integrity and a good name to the Cabinet of which my right hon. and learned friend is Prime Minister. But I say that it is constitutionally improper, and that it is a piece of camouflage when he attempts to deceive the public by window dressing his Cabinet with the name of the minister without portfolio from the province of Nova Scotia for the purpose of justifying the sign over the door-"Liberal," as well as "National" and "Conservative."


Mr. SPINNEY:: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the hon. member a question? Does he stand for the policy of the Liberal party between 1896 and 1911?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I stand, Mr. Speaker, for the policy of the Liberal party as laid down in the tariff plank of the Great National Liberal Convention held in August,
1919.	I would say with all kindness and courtesy that what the people are most interested in at the present time in regard to this matter is not where the member for Brome stands, but where the member for Yarmouth stands.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Just tell us.


Edgar Keith Spinney: In time; do not be impatient.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No doubt explanations will be in order and may be forthcoming.* It would be interesting to know whether the member for Yarmouth has converted the Prime Minister to his fiscal views or whether the Prime Minister has converted the member for Yarmouth to his.
The next item of Cabinet reconstruction about which I would like to talk for a few moments is the entry of the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr.. Wigmore). The Prime Minister was a little facetious the other day, or attempted to be a little facetious, at the expense of the leader of the Opposition in connection with the election- at St. John. I was there and I know something about it. My hon. and learned friend the Prime Minister endeavoured to draw comfort from the fact that he had been able to elect a man in the city of St. John. But there is not much comfort in that for the Prime Minister, because when the Min-

ister of Customs went before the good people of St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert, he said, Mr. Speaker, 

and oh, it burned itself into my consciousness, - "I stand not as a Liberal and not as a Conservative. I stand first in the interests of the port of St. John; next I stand in the interests of the people of St. John; then I stand in the interests of the province of New Brunswick, and after that of the Dominion of Canada." Now, this is not a free paraphrase of what the hon. gentleman said; I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is almost verbatim from the speech which he made shortly before I arrived in [DOT] that city

where the river flows both ways in the short space of twenty-four hours. However, lest what I have said be regarded as unfair, let me read from one of the papers supporting the Minister, the St. John Standard of Friday, September 10. It says:
What can Dr. Emery-
Dr. Emery was the Liberal candidate.
-do for the city that Mr. Wigmore cannot? Can he do anything at all? And if he were by any chance to find himself in Parliament repre-sentmg St. John, what amount of weight would his representations carry? If the electors of bt. John were to turn Mr. Wigmore down, then there would be an end, once and for all, of any hopes there may be of getting any more work done on the harbour or anything else that the city is interested m, from the present Government ; and as this Government is likely to be in power for several years yet,-
They are not too hopeful, those people down in St. John.
-St. John cannot afford to shut herself out in the cold indefinitely. St. John won't do it; her citizens will rally to the support of Mr. Wigmore with even more enthusiasm than they did three years ago-
As a matter of fact, they rallied to his support only to the extent of about half the enthusiasm they had demonstrated two or three years before.
-and he will see that they get what they want for their city, and that its shipping facilities shall be such as will enable it to handle the ever-increasing traffic that is coming and going through it year after year. Citizens, stand by Mr. Wigmore, and he will stand by the city.
It reminds me of the celebrated phrase in Pickwick Papers-" Pickwick and principle";-Wigmore and the harbour!
Other attempts Mr. Speaker, have been made at Cabinet reconstruction. We have had court laid to the province of Quebec.


William Duff: Fishing expeditions.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Prime Minister has developed a great love for the province

of Quebec, and the province of Quebec has said: " Oh, Arthur, this is so sudden." And he has answered: "I never told my love, but let concealment, like a worm in the bud, feed on my damask cheek." I am glad the Prime Minister has spoken kind words of the people of the province from which I come and of the race to which I do not belong, which I love. My only regret is that he waited until he was forty-five years of age and Prime Minister of this country before expressing, at least audibly, any such sentiments. But better late than never; So, fishing operations have begun under the control-under the, initiative almost-of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. (Mr. Ballantyne). Since the House rose in July last, there has been fishing, but it has been hook-and-line fishing, because you see, Mr. Speaker, the fish can be landed only in a boat with somewhat slender rod of a byelection. The tackle is somewhat light- in fact, the rod much too frail. We hear that after great efforts, one fish has been hooked but not landed in the boat. The tackle was too weak; the rod was not strong enough, and the poor fish is in this position-we often see it; a man is fishing; he has left his landing net at home; his tackle is not strong enough to lift the fish into the boat; he is drowning the fish; the mouth of the fish is above water, but the fish is not in the boat. It is desperately hard on the fish and of little profit to the fisherman. Let me say this to my right hon. friends: situated immediately opposite it is not a very elevated thing to be trying to bribe, by portfolios, your political opponents to enter your Cabinet. It is not what should be done. It has not been successful; I hope the attempt will be given up, But-and I say it with pride for the province from which I come-although these temptations have been held out to man after man on this side of the House, as yet there is no one from our side in the Cabinet which is presided over so ably by-


An hon. MEMBER:: What Cabinet?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was there a remark made? If so I did not catch it. I was referring to the Cabinet presided over by the present Prime Minister. I thought there was a remark made, Mr. Speaker; I am sorry if I have made a mistake. Perhaps it was a whisper-sotto voce.
The Prime Minister has endeavoured to taunt the Liberal party on its tariff attitude. He says that it is hard for him to find where the Liberal party stands on the tariff. If he has not already a copy, he

has only to apply to the National Liberal organization and he will be given, with that liberality of hand which distinguishes us, as many copies as he likes of the proceedings of the Liberal Convention of 1919. The Liberals, in convention assembled, laid down a tariff platform. That tariff platform is the policy of the Liberal party. By that platform we stand, and by that platform we shall win.
I do not purpose at this time imposing upon the House any long tariff discussion.
I see the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) looking at me. Ah, how well I remember that day in the summer of 1915 at Calgary when I made a speech in which I said that the tariff could not be wiped out over night and that we must proceed with caution, how he rose and berated me as a friend of the protectionist manufacturers of the East. I did not go quickly enough for him then. What has come over the spirit of his dream that he sits where he sits now? There are five main things that have to be considered in the tariff. There is the relief of the consumer. There is the directing of the capital and labour of the country into channels where they will bring forth the greatest economic return. There is the freeing of the people from the control of trusts and combines. Those are the three great objectives of a tariff revision. Then we have to consider the fact that for many years we have had this system of protection, and care and prudence must be used in reducing the tariff; and we must also consider the question of revenue. Those are the five great things we have in mind. Those are the five great things which have been looked after, taken care of, provided for, in the tariff policy of the Liberal party.
This is an important debate because upon it may rest the fate of the Ministry. It is a matter for the Prime Minister to consider whether for his own personal political fate he should refuse to go to the country. I suppose all thoughtful men in this Chamber will admit that Parliamentary institutions are on trial; that there are in the world to-day many people who say that Parliamentary institutions have not worked out as they should have done and that recourse should be had to direct action.
The other day-when I say the other day I am referring to what really happened several months ago-there was a rumour in Great Britain that war was to be engaged in with Russia, and the labour leaders in the Old Land said: We will
have no war with Russia; if you bring on war with Russia, we will down tools; we will stop the machine. With their opposition to war with Russia I am in most complete accord, but with the idea that one section of the community should, by economic force, be able to impose its will upon the rest of us, I have no sympathy whatever. But there are only two ways in which men can be governed- 4 p.m. either by force or by their consent-and in order to have men governed by their consent, there must be an organization for giving that consent, that opinion, proper expression, there must be a maintenance of' some sort of Parliament; and any one who attempts to make Parliament unresponsive to the will of the people does so at the risk of encouraging direct action. I have no dislike in my heart for the Prime Minister; I admire his good qualities; but with his political practices and policies I am at eternal war. I believe he sits there a usurper, and I would remind him that no usurper has ever for long successfully controlled the destinies of a British country. There was one great usurper-his name was Cromwell-and he did a great deal for his country. He made the name of England known and respected on land and sea; but after he disappeared, his power immediately became as naught, and we had the Restoration with all its attendant ills. I would ask the Prime Minister to read the history of leaders in all democratic countries who held on to office once their right to office had terminated. Did not every one of them suffer and suffer badly for having done so? I believe history will show that I am right.
Just in conclusion, I have a word to submit in connection with the Liberal Unionists who yet sit on the side of the Government. With us they are or have been the inheritors of a great tradition and a great name. Every man of them got vote after vote, tens of votes, hundreds of votes, thousands of votes, on the distinct understanding that his mandate was for the war and for the war alone. If they sit there, if they support this Government, then they break their pledged word to the electors of the country who supported them on that understanding. They can do that, but it will be wrong. The other day I heard a story of that great explorer, missionary, scientist, David - Livingstone. He fell sick in the centre of Africa; he was carried to the coast by his African bearers, and when he reached the coast there was an

English ship that would have taken him home to glory, honour, safety and health. But he had given his word to those Africans that he would take them back home again to their native village, and he left health, life and the opportunity for glory; he kept his word to those Africans, and they bore him back into mid-Africa to die because he was a man of his word, because his plighted word to him was above everything else. The fate of this Government is in the hands of those men who formerly called themselves Liberals, who sit behind the Government. It will be for them to say whether there should be an immediate appeal to the* people or whether this Government should maintain itself in power after having secured power under an understanding that its mandate would cease with the war.	'


Mr. LOUIS JOSEPH GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, every member who rises in his seat in this House to address his fellow-members generally asks for the indulgence of those who are about to listen to his remarks. This is specially true to-day on account of the special circumstances I am in, and I shall not even wait for the indulgence of my fellow-members, I ask for it at the very outset of my remarks. '
I should not like to be discourteous towards the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. McMaster). He has spoken m a very light manner indeed of the procedure adopted by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government to secure representation in the Cabinet. I should not like to follow him in- the same vein, but I shall address a few remarks to that hon. gentleman. He concluded his address with an appeal to the Liberal members who are supporting the Government, so that dissolution of Parliament could be secured. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brome claims to be a Liberal, claims to love justice, claims to fight for fair play, and represents one of the constituencies of the province of Quebec. And yet he has the audacity to rise in this House and in the name of his constituents ask the Government to dissolve Parliament when, according to the constitution the province of Quebec is the pivot of Confederation, and when its last unit of representation was 30,080, while its unit of representation based on the next census will in view of the increase as shown by the records of our province be 40,000 dollars.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: Yes, some of my
fellow members laugh when I speak of dollars. I would like those who laugh and those who smile to be able to stand where I stand to-day and fight the battle that I am fighting. Laughter and smiles won't stop me. The men who have tried to tame me know they cannot tame or break me. I was saying that our unit of representation based on the next census will be 40,000. Take simply the Island of Montreal, represented in this Parliament by twelve members, and having a population of more than 800,000. The city of Montreal will be entitled to twenty seats. And yet a member from this province asks the Liberals supporting the Government to consent to the House being dissolved.
My hon. friend has been talking of fish and bribery. I do not know what he means, and I will wait for his future explanation. But when he says that he is going to stand on the platform of the Liberal party as enacted in the National Liberal Convention held in Ottawa in the month of August 1919, I would remind the House that the only plank which was able to bear the weight of the hon. member for Brome was the plank of free trade.
But since that convention was held, the plank has been so much chopped up that now it does not carry the hon. member but he carries it, cut in pieces, in his vest pocket. May I remind the hon. gentleman who is still labouring under the misapprehensions with which he prefaced his remarks on the question of free trade and protection, that it is only last year the hon. gentleman discovered that the Liberal party in its fifteen years of power had always adhered to protection. It was a scene to be recorded in Hansard, Mr. Speaker. Many Liberal members were sitting around the table, and the hon. member for Brome was trying to commit his party to free trade. The meeting was presided over by that great old politician warrior who for fifteen years sat on the treasury benches as Minister of Finance in the Laurier Administration. My hon. friend the member for Brome was trying to induce the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) to commit himself to free trade and said " Well, does not the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's understand that the Liberal party is a party of free traders?" " Yes, yes," said the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's with his genial smile and in his highly cultured manner, " yes, yes, free trade is a nice theory." " But," said the member for Brome " we must have it." " Yes, yes,"

answered the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's," " In theory; hut in practice, no." The hon. member for Brome was dumbfounded. He had still ringing in his ears all the speeches of the Liberal chieftain stating that the Liberals were for free trade. But he had not looked at the statute book. He did not realize until last year that when in power his party and my party adhered to the protectionist idea, as can he proven. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, I should not take up more time in discussing the hon. member for Brome. Perhaps in the course of my remarks I may have the pleasure of referring to him once more.
I come now to the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin). He issues a warning to the Government. He says: Do not talk tariff on the Address. Who is talking tariff on the Address? The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) stated that he was ready to discuss the tariff question. As a matter of fact, he said: Whenever our party comes back to power we will give this country a tariff identical with that of the fifteen years of Liberal Administration. Now what was the platform of that party if it was not protection? Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal party came into power in 1896 the platform of the National Liberal Convention of 1893 was still fresh in the minds of everybody. The Liberal leader at that time, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, called in to his assistance all the Liberal premiers of the different provinces of Canada, and we had in this country what will go down in our political history as the great Cabinet of Confederation. What happened, Sir? In spite of all the pledges for "free trade as they had it in England," and all the promises that the tariff should be a tariff for revenue only, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's had a tariff commission going around the country just as the present Government has had a commission going around the country.
And I do not understand why the member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) should ask the question, "Why a tariff question?" When the party which he supports had two commissions, one in 1897 and another in 1907. The fact is that this Government is following the same policy as the Liberals followed when they were in power. I admit that there were many articles on the free list; I do not remember the exact number, but speaking from memory I believe that there were at least 141 articles on the free list; and the duties were lower-on at least 118 articles coming
from foreign countries into Canada. But there was a preferential duty accorded British industry. The first preferential duty was 25 per cent, and it was understood that it would be increased to 33 1-3 per cent. If my figures are correct the tariff of 1897 when brought down was an average tariff of 21 per cent. Now, in the devastation that follows war the countries that have suffered must import farm products from those countries that have continued to produce. The demand arising from South Africa after the war in that country arose about the same time as the preference was given by us to British industry, and these two combined caused a condition of expansion and development in Canada.
Here I desire to draw attention to a fact that tells many sad tales. In 1893 the Hon. Joseph Israel Tarte fought his Conservative friends. He threw down the gauntlet to his former associates to run in the County of L'lslet on the question of the Connolly Dry Dock Scandal. He was returned, to battle down the fortress of the Conservative party in this House, and finally brought Parliament to dissolution in 1896. Every man of my age who had the opportunity to fight in those days must remember the Hon. Mr. Tarte who, during the Campaign of 1896 had not enough money to pay his cab fare from one meeting to another. They must remember the hard work he did and I think they will recall the fact that he was rewarded in a sense, by being appointed Minister of Public Works. But the Liberals of that day, like the so-called Liberals of to-day, wanted to secure the scalp of Mr. Tarte and represented him as a Tory in a Liberal Government. In 1904-and here is the injustice of the thing ___Mr. Tarte started a campaign preaching the increase of tariff duties, because in the meantime the British Preference had gone up to 33 1-3 per cent, and our industries were unable to compete. As I stand here, Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that the woollen industry of this country has been killed by the British Preference; but for the sake of the rest of the community we swallowed the Preference and the woollen industry went bankrupt. Seeing the danger with which this country was confronted, Mr. Tarte started a campaign to have the tariff raised; he preached the increase of protection. He was thrown out of the Cabinet, and in 1907, three years after his expulsion, this very party increased the tariff from 21 per cent to 29

per cent, the very thing which Mr. Tarte had been advocating. Listen to their speeches! They have saved the country! Yes, Sir, they saved the country-when they could not do otherwise. Imagine my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) speaking as he does, when he knows that for fifteen years the Liberal party had been committed to protection. Imagine his being the financial critic of the Opposition during a whole Parliament. God save that party! The Conservatives of this country have been committed to the principle of protection since 1878; and the proof that the Liberal party had a protective tariff is the fact that during the elections of 1911 the Tories said "let well enough alone." They were satisfied with the tariff at that time. What has happened since? Since 1911 the British Preference has been abolished. I do not believe that the present Government should be lauded for this. The tariff has been reduced to please the agrarian movement, and I do not believe either that the Government should be lauded on this account. Sir, let me make a declaration here and now: I have more respect for the representatives of the farmer and the labour elements because they are true to the doctrines they preach. There is a difference between this group on the cross benches and that other group, the Liberal group. The Liberals vary their declaration as they move from one parish to another, from one county to another, and from one province to another. The hon. gentleman who represents the county of Maisonneuve and at the same time the county of Gaspe has declared in the province of Quebec time and time again that he was a protectionist, that he always had been a protectionist, and that his party was one that adhered to the principle of protection. Yet he was present at the convention, where he spoke, and two rows behind him the hon. member for Brome could stand up and say: "I am a free trader; I am against protection"-this notwithstanding that his provincial leader called himself a protectionist to the core.
Well, Sir, if-as I believe and as I think will be admitted-the Liberal party when in power adhered to protection; and if the Liberal party, as has been stated by the member for North Cape Breton when brought back to power, is willing to give the country a tariff similar to that of the Liberal administration from 1896 to 1911, why should the Opposition now refuse to accept the paragraph in the speech from the Throne with respect to protection? Ah,

they are trying to evade the point, they are trying to cloud the issue that is involved, they do not care about the other provinces. The Liberal party in this House numbers eighty-two members, and sixty-one of them come from the province of Quebec. In that province they control or are interested in certain newspapers, and they believe that through the influence of those journals they will be able to so mould public opinion as to ensure that the solid block of Liberal members from Quebec shall never be disintegrated. On this issue I am prepared to meet them, if not through the press on the public platform.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We will be there.
Other hon. MEMBERS: We will meet you.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: To hear these hon. gentlemen one would imagine that I held the fate of the Government in my hands and that they were asking for dissolution from me. The answer I give them is that I promise to transfer their message to the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government.	*


An hon. MEMBER:: A good messenger


Louis Joseph Gauthier: A messenger that the Liberal party was glad to have in its ranks for many years; a messenger who in their interest ran from one to another of the forty-five ridings in the district of Montreal and who has preached the gospel of Liberalism not only in Quebec but in New Brunswick, in Ontario and in the West; a messenger that my hon. friends can use no more; a messenger that they are willing still to be master of but who recognizes no master since his leader is dead.
Coming to the question of dissolution the leader of the Opposition wishes to know what mandate the Government has for remaining in office. Sir, I have always thought that according to sound constitutional doctrine a government was elected for the period prescribed by the law- that it was at liberty to shorten that period, but had no power to enlarge it. That is the letter of the law. What is the spirit of the law? It is that as long as a government has a majority in this Chamber it can remain in office, and many are the occasions when it should undoubtedly do so. Supposing the appeal made by the hon. member for Brome should be favourably received by Liberals who are now supporting the Government? Supposing for one moment that were to occur

and that those thirty-eight Liberal members were to cross to the Opposition side? Would the leader of the Opposition when called into office be obliged to go to the country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: No, he would have
supporting him a majority of the members elected for this Parliament. Possibly he might take that course, but it is my firm belief that if such a thing happened he would not go to the country. He would not go to the country because if he did so in advance of the redistribution of seats following the taking of the census he would not remain in office for one single day. The West, as well as the province of Quebec, would clamour to have its rights; and no Prime Minister would be strong enough to withstand the clamour that would be raised by the province of Quebec supported by the other provinces.
But there is another consideration to be borne in mind. At the last session of Parliament the Opposition proposed an amendment to the Speech from the Throne declaring that the Government had no mandate and that it should dissolve Parliament and go to the people.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Did you support that
amendment?


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I did.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why have you
changed your attitude then?


Louis Joseph Gauthier: Do not be to precipitate. I will give my explanation and it will show the difference between the hon. members of the Opposition and myself. I will prove that I am consistent and that they are not. But inconsistency does not worry my hon. friends; they never were consistent. When the amendment declaring that the Government had no mandate had been debated and the division had disclosed beyond no doubt that it had sufficient majority to continue transacting the affairs of the country, what happened? Towards the close of the session a resolution increasing the indemnity of members was brought down and adopted. Did my hon. friends of the Opposition accept that increase? Yes, Sir, they did. Why did they accept it if the Government had no mandate? If their contention were true, they, as well as the Government and its supporters, improperly accepted money from the public treasury. But they accepted the increase of indemnity, and having done so they now say to the Government which
granted it, "You have no mandate, get out." Last Session I voted in favour of the motion declaring the Government had no mandate, but I accepted the increase of indemnity because the majority decided otherwise and to that position I adhere.


Mr. LANCTOT:: I did not benefit by the increase of indemnity.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I was going to make an exception with respect to my hon. friend; I should be very sorry not to do so. The only gentleman who stood up in this House and fought the increase of indemnity was the hon. member for Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot). Of course, like the others, he pocketed the ' money, but he declared-and this is the declaration that I want- to underline-that he would never profit by this increase, but would divide it equally between his two counties. I suppose that is what he intends to do. The auditors will audit the books, and they will report in due time.


Roch Lanctôt: Mr. Speaker, will you permit me to offer an explanation?


Louis Joseph Gauthier: Certainly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is not in order in making an explanation at this stage. If he desires to submit a question to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville (Mr. Gauthier) he may do so with the latter's consent.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: The gentleman who wanted to correct stands corrected. The hon. member (Mr. McMaster) seemed to be very fond of precedents to show that this Government might remain in office. Of course, hon. members of the Opposition have stated that there is no precedent whatever for such retention of power. May I be permitted, Sir, to tell hon. members who come from my province that the only two precedents that can be quoted occurred in our own native province. In November, 1904, we had a provincial election there. The Premier at that time was the late Hon. S. N. Parent, and he had as one of his cabinet ministers Mr. Lomer Gouin. The election was fought in November, the cabinet of Mr. Parent was maintained, and the House was called upon to meet in January; but for fifteen days there were no sittings, because the members were fighting in groups, and finally Mr. Gouin got the best of it and Mr. Parent was murdered, politically. Is that a precedent? The Liberals still claim that Sir Lomer Gouin is the greatest premier we have ever had in our province, but that

is the way he came into power. He had no mandate from the people; he had a mandate from the members of the House, and that was sufficient for him, and was also sufficient for the federal members, the so-called Liberals from Quebec.
But there is another precedent, Sir;' it happened in 1920. In June, 1919, we had a general election for the provincial House. Sir Lomer Gouin was the premier, and was returned with seventy-six of his partisans, but later on he was appointed to the Legislative Council and Mr. Tasche-reau took his place. Mr. Taschereau did not go to the country. Is not that a precedent? "Oh, well," the Liberal press of Quebec will Bay, "he is following the same policy." He is not, and they know it. Sir Lomer Gouin had placed on the statute books a prohibition law. Mr. Taschereau is about to enact another law by which the local government at Quebec will he the absolute and sole dealer in alcohol. Is that the same policy as Sir Lomer Gouin's? No. Did Mr. Taschereau go to the country? No.
Having disposed of the arguments that have been advanced so far by those who fight this Government on the question of dissolution, to please my former friends I should like to go a lttle deeper into politics. I asked the indulgence of the House. As there was no expression of dissent, I suppose I secure that indulgence. The Liberals of to-day, as I stated a moment ago, do not follow the path of true Liberalism. What constitutes the first principle of Liberalism? It is universal suffrage. Who gave it to this country, the Liberals or the Conservatives? I was amazed to listen to my hon. friend from Brome, a worthy scion of the sturdy Scotch race. I suppose he came originally from the Highlands, but he has always lived in the lowlands of politics. He proclaims himself a Liberal of the old school, and yet in his speech, Sir, he was complaining because during the war the Government of the day saw fit to give the right to vote to the wives and daughters of the soldiers at the front. From a Liberal standpoint it was a good move to give universal suffrage; but it came from the Government of the day, consequently my hon. friend from Brome sets aside his Liberalism and hurls his attacks against the Government.
Liberals of to-day, we will-with your permission, Mr. Speaker-look over the road. The Liberal party in days gone by fought for many years to abolish the double mandate, and it was finally abolished in 1873. 
Before that year the same man could be a senator, a legislative councillor, and an appointee of the Crown. This double mandate had emanated from the Family Compact, which at one time controlled this country for the advantage of the few. What do you see, Sir, even in this Chamber? You see the hon. member for St. Denis, Montreal (Mr. Verville), the untamed defender of the working man. Do you remember, Sir, his fiery speeches when he was cutting into small bits a piece of sausage to distribute to the children? He was preaching rebellion, and I remember having heard him say on the floor of the House, when we were discussing the $35,000,000 grant to the English navy, that if ever there was a war the working men would stop it by going on strike. Well, he was a very bad prophet, as he is a very bad Liberal. Actually he draws his sessional indemnity of $4,000 as a member of this House, and he draws $10,000 as a commissioner of the city of - Montreal. When he is in Montreal he does not fulfil his duties in Ottawa; when he is m Ottawa he does not fulfil his duties in Montreal. But he draws the two salaries. He is for the double mandate as long as he can hold on to it.
He is not alone, Sir; he has a colleague who stands in the same position. I might say, en passant, that the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Lafortune) is at the same time a member of the House and a substitute for the Attorney General at Montreal at a salary of $4,000. But when the late Government appointed Mr. Cha-pais to the Senate, while at the same time he held the office of Legislative Councillor, you could hear the Liberals claiming that it was an outrage. An outrage when the double mandate is for the benefit of the Tories, but a mighty good thing when it is for the benefit of one of the Liberals.
But in this House, Sir, we have better than that. We have an hon. member, who, since the beginning of this Parliament has represented two different ridings separated by a distance of three hundred and fifty miles. One is the constituency of Maison-neuve, which is an urban riding; the other is the constituency of Gaspe, mostly settled by fishermen. When the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) is asked by the fishermen of Gaspe to support a policy of free trade because they want to obtain American goods free of duty as well as enjoy the benefits of the Boston market for their fish, the hon. member has to advocate free trade. But when the electors of Maison-

neuve want protection because with free trade their earning power might be diminished, the hon. gentleman votes for protection. Whether it is free trade or protection, the hon. member is sure always to have one seat at the right time. The member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe has been in public life for quite a while. He has a few friends-a few people are scared by him; and a large number of people do not care much about him. By right of seniority he is the first lieutenant of the provincial Liberal wing. The member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is at the head of the other faction. If -I were to compare the leaders of the two factions, I would say that the members in the Quebec district are proud of their leader in the person of the member for Quebec East; but who among those of the Montreal district will say that he is proud of his leader? I do not think, Sir, that you could find one who would say so. Why? The hon. member was described on one occasion in a newspaper article published in French, entitled " Tout pour le mieux ". If I had. to translate this in English I would say:	" All to the good," but
in order to get at its real meaning in this case I would have to translate it: "Everything for Lemieux." That is why the hon. member has no friends, Mr. Speaker. And pretending to represent the Liberal party, though he was not the leader of the party to which I belonged, has seen fit to read me out of the ranks of the Liberal Party. I have been in the Liberal Party since 1896. I' have fought the battles of my party since 1897. I never complained when I was given the worst positions to defend; I never complained when there were any bouquets or flowers to receive that were received by others. No, Sir, I never complained. I was a soldier in the Liberal army and I did my duty to the best of my ability and according to the dictates of my conscience. The hon. gentleman has no right to say that I am a traitor; that I am a renegade; that I am a Judas. He has no right, either, to ask his fellow-members who are the owners or editors of certain newspapers in my Province to hurl insults at me, after all I have dong for every one of them.
I am going to try to show who is really the traitor and renegade. I stand here for the protective tariff as enacted by the Liberal administration. For what does the Liberal Opposition stand? Fifteen per cent tariff; fifty per cent Imperial preference-giving a preference of seven and a half per cent against English industries, and in favour of our own industries. Who are the traitors? Who are the renegades? Is the man a traitor who still fights for the tariff instituted by the late Sir Wilfred Laurier and the Liberal Party, which has brought wealth and happiness to the people? Or are those the traitors who went to destroy that platform; who want free trade; who want a tariff for revenue, or any kind of policy which will enable them to take the spoils of office?
I was elected as a Laurierite in 1917. On what policy, Sir? On the Laurier naval policy. For that policy I stand and will stand to the end of my political life. Am I a traitor? Am I a renegade? Am I a Judas? Whom have I betrayed? The Liberal Opposition themselves have left the platform and the policy of Laurier. I was elected by electors who knew where I stood and who know where I stand to-day. To whom am I a traitor? In what respect am I a renegade? Against whom am I a Judas? Where is the man, where is the party, where is the platform, that I have betrayed? It cannot be shown. But in order to keep the Quebec block solid, the two factions of the Liberals of the province of Quebec do not want any conferences between Quebec and the Government. They admit, though, that Quebec, being in the minority, must have an ally. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) would be willing to join hands with the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar). The hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe is willing, if I can rely upon his word, to make an alliance with the Hon. Mr. Drury. Everyone admits that the isolation of Quebec must be terminated; but because I do not see eye to eye with my hon. friends, because I do not want to be a party to an alliance with the farmers, to an alliance with the labourers, because I am afraid of the communism of the agrarian movement-


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: Oh no, we are all right.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I have a right to my opinion even when it is contradicted by the hon. member for Red Deer. I do not want him to be ruled by my opinion, and he could not ask me to be ruled by his. It is my belief, Sir, that the agrarian movement is tending to a class movement, and I am afraid of that, and my people are afraid of it. Have we not a right to

choose our ally? Are we going to choose our ally to please Mr. So-and-So or the hon. member for such-an-such riding? We are going to seek an alliance, this alliance to be made for the benefit of all parties concerned and specially for harmony amongst all classes, all groups, all provinces, all races, all creeds.
When the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) took exception to my words, I was stating that I could not advocate an alliance with the labour element. I will say why. The labour element in this country is affiliated with the American Federation of Labour, the headquarters of which are at Washington, pretty near the Capitol. I do not want our policy, our fiscal policy, our national policy, to be dominated by somebody who does not live in our land. That is quite right, and I have an absolute right to hold that opinion. I have said this, and I am willing to repeat it because I speak the truth as I understand it. I have more respect for the farmers who stand by their guns, who advocate free trade, who want to have a group of agrarian members in this House. We know where they are; we know where they will land. I can discuss matters with them, because I know what they want; I am not afraid of them; they are under their own flag, they show their colours. We know of what stamp they are made; we know what their policy is. But after all, if their principles do not agree with my belief, surely I am at liberty to say that I do not want an alliance- with that group.
Mr, CLARK (Red Deer) : Sure.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: Thank you. Before leaving this interesting subject of the Liberalism of the Liberals of to-day, I should like to make a few more references to my bosom friend, the hon. member who represents in this House the two constituencies of Gaspe and Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). In this life majority counts; we must have every unit when we are fighting. Here is a gentlemen who is supposed to
5 p.m. be a Liberal, who holds in this House a double mandate with only one seat.	The Liberal party has
found its last refuge in the province * of Quebec, because outside of Quebec, I do not believe there are more than twenty-one Liberal members. The Liberal party, when the votes are recorded, is interested in having all the votes it can poll; but . through sheer eogtism the hon. gentleman has seen fit to keep the two seats, and
 *
whenever a vote is recorded, the Opposition loses one vote. But my hon. friend wants to go down to posterity as having been on the same footing as his late chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who for one Parliament held two seats also. But one of those seats was protested before the courts; actually there is no protest. How is it that a gentleman can stand in that position for the satisfaction of his own feeling against the triumph or the progressive fight of the party with which he is affiliated? It is a mystery which cannot be very easily explained. If I had any malicious feeling towards the hon. gentleman, I would say that I could give two explanations of his career, one a literary one and the other an applied science one. In reading over the fables of LaFontaine one finds the Fable of the Bat. The Bat, when flying with birds, can say: "Look at my wings, I am a bird," but when down on mother earth, she can also say: "I am a mouse; long live the rodents." When the hon. gentleman fights for free trade, he appeals to the masses of democracy td look at his wings. But when he fights for the big interests of his own constituency, when he goes with the bankers, the financiers, the industrial men; when he goes into the trust companies, into the insurance companies, dealing with all the wealthy in the land-"long live the rodents." If, passing from this literary reminiscence you go to applied science, you will remember that for many years there was a great discussion about airships. Some scientists claimed that in order to float in the atmosphere you should have something lighter than air. Then scientists came to the conclusion that it was necessary to have something heavier than air. At the time of the first theory balloops were made of silk and were filled with gas. Then the aeroplane was invented, and through the rapidity of the movements ofl its motor it was able to plane into the atmosphere. The hon. gentleman started his career as a balloon. He was robed with silk and filled with gas. Then he changed into an aeroplane. He had to give action to his airship through the most powerful motor there has ever been in this land, one that can never be duplicated. This motor was named Sir Wilfrid Laurier. When the motor stopped, the aeroplane . came down to Mother Earth, and it is still splashing around in all the muddy spots, whence it can fly no more. He can say to those who still surround him: "Once I was

a bird, look at my broken wings," but for the common people he will ever remain the most perfect political bat this country has ever known or heard of.
Mr. Speaker, it is an unsound Liberalism to preach the gospel of hatred against the majority of a country. It is unsound Liberalism to isolate a minority in a country.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: Oh, never mind. This is a very serious game, and I have had to discard the hon. gentleman. There is no joker in the deck. I repeat, it is unsound Liberalism to isolate a minority, and. I stand by what I have just said. It may be all right to have a solid block if you can appeal to the majority and win them to your cause, but if you cannot win them on account of your platform or on account of your theory, and if you are condemned to remain an isolated minority, I say it is bad Liberalism, and that has been proved to the hilt by the constitutional history of this country. The doctrine is so false that even the so-called Liberals are looking for allies. They are trying to induce the farmers to come in with them. They feel their utter incapacity unless they make an alliance. With whom should this alliance be made? By whom should it be made? These are the two points I should like to discuss now.
I have advocated the doctrine that isolation for Quebec should come to an end. Have I sacrificed any one of my political principles? Not one. Have I betrayed anybody? No one. If there are those in my province who are in any better position to discuss the situation with the powers that sit on the Treasury Benches, why do they not discuss it? If they believe that an alliance should be made, and if the Government of to-day is willing to make an alliance on a fair basis, with equal rights and mutual respect for everybody, who should complain? The policy of an alliance has been the policy of Quebec since the days of 1840 under the Union Act. It has been the sound policy, and it cannot be otherwise, for the good of this country, and the interests of all parties are looked after.
Sir, we have had two policies of alliances in this country. I am speaking now of my own province. The province of Quebec has had two alliances, one was when Cartier united Quebec with Ontario. The other was after 1896 when my late leader made an alliance between Quebec and the West. If you look at the records of the general elections of 1900, 1904, 1908, 1911, and
1917, you will see that, although through the alliance of the late Clarke Wallace with the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we were able to get forty-eight out of the ninety-six seats in Ontario, at every ensuing general election this majority has dwindled. It was thirty-eight in 1904, it was less than twenty in 1908, it came down to seventeen in 1911, and it finally rested at thirteen. What is the meaning of this? It is that the province of Ontario, seeing that the alliance with Quebec had been broken for the benefit of the western provinces, sought new alliances to direct the policies of this country. The alliance between Cartier and Macdonald was consummated in 1849 or 1850, about the time when the Governor General was insulted in the streets of Montreal, when the Parliament building was set on fire, when the annexation manifesto was circulated and signed by many people in this country who wanted secession from the mother country and annexation with the United States.
Cartier made an alliance with Macdonald. What has been the result so far as the country and my province are concerned? We had the opening of the La-chine canal, the construction of the Grand Trunk railway, the abolition of " tenure seigneuriale" in 1854, the organization of our municipal law in 1858. We had the codification of our French laws in 1864, and then there was Confederation, which gave to the province of Quebec the absolute control of all matters relating to education and of parochial and municipal law, making Quebec mistress in her own territory, under the guidance of the Federal Parliament.
This is what we had under the first alliance. What have we from the other one, and what can we expect? That is the point. The population of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, is atached to the soil. This is our own country; we have no other. If we left it we should be exiles. We must therefore remain here; we are rooted to the soil. It was discovered by our forefathers; it was trodden by our pioneers, and it has been reddened with the blood of our martyrs. We want to remain here; therefore, we have no desire to go ony-where else. Now, we are in the minority. With whom should we make an alliance? I have claimed all along that the natural ally of Quebec is Ontario. Since 1912, after the defeat of reciprocity in 1911, in the ranks of my own party I have advocated that theory and preached it as a gospel. I was not listened to. The Liberal party



wants to retain an alliance with the West. Sir, I have no objection to the people of the West:	none at all. I respect them.
They came here to draw from the soil the wealth which Providence has stored there for those who are sturdy enough to work and obtain it. I have no objection to their helping us to develop the country. But, Mr. Speaker, figures are figures, and I have before me figures that show that west of the Great Lakes 63 per cent of the population are not British born. This is not my fault, but it is a fact. Am I going to preach an alliance with those who have not the same ideals as we have and who do not love our institutions? No, Sir, I cannot do that; for one, I will not consent to it. Everyone, of course, is at liberty to choose his own ally. I am choosing mine, and I shall try to make my people see as I do in this matter. If I fail I shall not bewail my failure; but I hope to win because I want to see peace and harmony restored in this country. This doctrine, in my mind, is a sound one. It is not based on prejudice; it is not based on hatred; it is not based on any sad passion of the human heart. The doctrine was so sound that my former friends, the so-called Liberals, could not attack it, and they therefore decided to murder the preacher.
Now, they have begun to take cognizance of two accusations that have been levelled at me, one since 1906, and the other since 1915. At the outset of my remarks I asked for the indulgence of the House, as it was my intention to deal once for all with those accusations; and if my former friends, so-called Liberals, have seen fit to make use of those accusations, being a public man, I have considered that the proper place in which to dispose of them is the House of Commons, the highest tribunal in the land. I shall deal with the first accusation.
It is that in 1906, when I ran as a Liberal candidate for the county of L'Assomp-tion, I promised my support to the Conservative party in consideration of the sum of $1,500 which was to be paid to me. This accusation has been hurled against me now for fifteen years. So long as the Conservatives of my province thought fit to make use of that charge I deemed it a good strategic move to let them keep on for the time being, for they were not injuring the governments which I was supporting. As a matter of fact, Sir, this charge has never hurt me, because every time it has been made I have been in a position to give the official denial to it. Here are the facts. In 1906 there was a vacancy in the Provin-

cial House, ocasioned by the appointment of Mr. Joseph P. Duhamel to the office of Chief Registrar of the province. The Liberal convention held at L'Assomption was presided over by the late Hon. Jean Provost, who was at the time Minister of Colonization and of Marine and Fisheries in the local Cabinet. My name was put forward as a candidate to the convention. I refused to have my name put up for nomination because I was certain-I had the proof -that some delegates had been approached with the view of inducing them to vote against me; and not wishing to be slaughtered by process of a convention organized and influenced in that way, I withdrew my name before nomination.
One Joseph Papin was chosen as the candidate. He was the President of the Agricultural Society of the County, but his choice did not meet with the approval of the farming community. Immediately after he was chosen, some farmers came to me and tendered me the nomination should I desire to run as an independent Liberal. One of those farmers offered me his personal cheque for $1,200 to defray my expenses. On the morning of nomination day the man chosen as the government candidate was so strong that he ran away and I was returned by acclamation. Now, Sir, the Conservatives since that time have spread broadcast against me, the slander that they had been prepared to bribe me.
I will explain how this legend has been created. The Provincial Government of the day was preparing a taxation law against fraternal societies. La Soeiete des Artisans Canadiens Frangais, which is doing business in eight provinces of Canada and in eight states of the American Union would have been called upon, had the proposed legislation been enacted, to pay in taxation an amount equal to six or seven thousand dollars, whereas they were at the time paying but a nominal tax. In the law of every province of Canada, or state of the United States, there is a proviso that if a foreign company doing business in that province or in that state is paying in its own country a higher taxation than it is paying in the foreign country, the government of the latter country will have the privilege of increasing its taxation to an amount equal to that imposed in the native land of the association. The proposed legislation would have meant for this society a taxation of from five to six thousand dollars a year, when we were paying but $5 and $10 a year in every provinee and state.

The lawyer of the Society was one Alfred Labelle, who is now deceased. During the time of the L'Assomption election we discussed more than once the question of the taxation of the fraternal societies. I was interested in La Societe des Artisans, and Mr. Labelle and I decided that if it were necessary we would organize a joint movement between all the fraternal societies doing business and having their headquarters in the province of Quebec so that we would be able to ask the government to refrain from putting the proposed law into effect. Well, Sir, J was returned by acclamation. Afterward I went and had dinner at the Club Lafontaine, which was a social as well as a business club. My leader, Sir Lomer Gouin, had dinner there more than once. Lately in the city of Montreal a banquet was given to a certain Conservative senator who was attended by Liberal senators, and even ministers, men who were personal friends of the host. Would it be possible to suppose for one moment that because you have a luncheon or a dinner with a man of opposite politics you are going to betray your party? That is nonsense. I did not need the money. I was returned by acclamation. If I had been opposed I had actually a certain amount of money which was more than sufficient to pay my legal expenditure. I did not need the money, I did not get the money, I never promised anything. After the election I was asked by the then Premier to propose the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. Since that day up till last fall I always fought for my party, and have defended members of the Liberal party when Conservatives were attacking them. Now so-called Liberals, my former friends, are indulging in slanderous attacks. The only thing I can say that I have nothing but contempt for them and for their actions.
Now, Mr, Speaker, let me proceed to the second acccusation. It is the one which has reference to the same Society of Artisans. The Society was founded in 1817, in the dark hour of that dark period when the civic authorities in the city of Montreal were compelled to open public kitchens at the corners of all thoroughfares to feed the starving population. [DOT] A carpenter by the name of Archambault founded the Society to look after the interests of sick members and, upon their demise, the interests of their widows and orphans. As in the case of all societies of the kind funded during that century, it was based on charity and sympathy.
Orginally the Society was local in its character, but, starting in 1890, it expanded throughout all the provinces, and in 1900 it began operations in the United States. I regret to say that although in 1915 the membership was forty-three thousand and that membership international in character, its administration was provincial in the sense that all the directors to be elected must be chosen in the district of Montreal. I entered the Society in 1900. I acted as a delegate at the convention of that year and have acted in a similar capacity at every convention since. I have been in charge of the legislative committee which has entirely transformed the Society and its finances and which has put the Association-to quote the words of its actuary Mr. George Dyre Aldridge [DOT]-in a position unique on the whole continent. When I left the office of president, to which I was elected in 1914, for every $100 of liability I left in the coffers of the association $125.50. The Society stands in a class by itself. After having transformed this society, I was the first professional man to be elected as first vice-president, which office consists mostly in looking after the financial affairs of the association. At the convention of 1914 I was the first professional man to be elected to the high office of president, and I am sure that office was given to me unanimously on account of the services that I had rendered to the society.
Now, Sir, on the first Saturday of September, 1915, just as I was leaving the hospital where I had been undergoing an operation, the newspaper Le Pays came out with an article stating that L. J. Gauthier had been speculating with the funds of the society, that he had taken the money in its treasury to buy bonds, which he afterwards re-sold to the society of which he was the president. This was the accusation, and it was afterwards published in the Montreal newspaper, La Patrie, by the Quebec newspaper, L'Evene-ment, and also by Le Courrier de St. Hya-cinthe, which at the time was a Conservative organ.
A convention was called, and the membership of 43,000 sent in their delegates. The books were opened and the transactions carefully examined, and out of sixty-five votes, eleven were cast against me and fifty-four were given in my favour, the latter stating that the accusation was malicious, slanderous and unfounded. But I was not surprised. The society being international in its membership and provin-



GEORGE DYRE ELDRIDGE.

[Stage Direction]
Is it possible, Sir, that in the hope of destroying a single man, members representing the province of Quebec-in which this society is one of the foremost organizations of its kind, because it has made the French-Canadian name known in all insurance circles throughout the continent of North America-is it possible that in the hope of crushing down a single man, a member should take the risk of injuring the future of an institution'of that kind? This will show, Sir, what is the spirit which animates members who, to flatter their own egotism, to give a chance for the employment of their verbosity and pomposity, would like to be alone in the field; would like to let posterity know that in the year of Our Lord 1921 there was a very big man who represented at the same time the
two separate constituencies of Maissonneuve and Gaspe.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis Joseph Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was just concluding my remarks by reading a report from the actuary of the Society of Artisans on the management, from a financial standpoint, of the affairs of that society. I do not want to weary the House with that question, but I would like to put on Hansard the following remarks which will conclude the point that I had been making before six o'clock. This question of the Artisans and this question of Le Club Lafontaine were dealt with in the Courier de St. Hyacinthe, which at the time was a Conservative newspaper in my riding, and following the advice of my friends in the constituency, I instituted legal proceedings agdinst that newspaper. The owners of the newspaper came to me asking for a settlement out of court. This I refused. The matter went to judgment, and the two questions were declared to.be slanders and malicious affirmations against a public man with no good ground for them. The judgment was rendered by His Lordship the late Mr. Justice Charbonneau.
There was another judgment in the same matter of the Artisans before the Superior Court of Montreal presided over by His Lordship Mr. Justice Mercier. The whole question of the investments of the society was looked into, and the judgment declared that there was nothing in those accusations. The plaintiff was not satisfied; he inscribed his case in the Court of Review, and in the last days of 1920 judgment was rendered unanimously confirming the judgment of His Lordship Mr. Justice Mercier. When my former friends decided to take up this question, I wrote on the 29th January last to the headquarters of the society asking the Board of Directors, as much for the sake of the society as for my personal sake to reestablish the facts as they were according to the books. On the 1st February, 1921, the Board of Directors held a meeting at which were present: Mgr. G. M. LePail-lour, general chaplain, Messrs. Napoleon Deschamps, 1st vice-president, General L.

G. Bertrand, Dr. J. E. Raeicot, J. E. C. Daoust, Dr. E. Hurtubise, E. Desjarlais, S. Dupere, general directors; Henri Roy, general secretary-treasurer; Louis Fontaine, assistant general secretary-treasurer; Dr. J. A. Rouleau, chief physician and Zenon Fontaine, legal counsel, under the presidency of Mr. Rudolphe Bedard, general president. This is the motion which was adopted unanimously by the Board of Directors of the society, which motion, in my mind, should do away with all the attacks to which I have been subjected :
The Executive Council, after deliberation, declare:	that the administration of Mr. L. J.
Gauthier has been progressive, wise, prudent and profitable; that the Society recognizes1 with pleasure the important services that have been rendered to it by Mr. Gauthier in his capacity of legislative adviser as well as with his ability in administrative matter. In a word, the society must congratulate itself upon having Mr. Gauthier as one of its directors and as -resident, as1 has been acknowledged by the highest tribunal of the society, the conference heid in 1915.	'
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House; but I believed, as long as I was a simple member of a political party and these accusations were brought against me by my opponents, I had nothing to complain of; it was their right to try to persuade the electors that I was not worthy of the confidence of my constituents. But my status has changed since last fall, and when my former friends, the Liberals, took upon themselves those accusations which have been declared futile, malicious, and slanderous, I thought it was my duty, equally for my constituents as for my family and myself, and also for the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government (Mr. Meighen) to get clear away from the shadow of these accusations because I have been called to public conferences with the constituted authorities of this Parliament.
What has been my stand all along? Can my former friends, the so-called Liberals of Quebec, complain because I am to-day in favour of protection, as I was in former days in favour of protection? At the last convention of the Liberal party held in the month of August, 1919, in the city of Ottawa, when the time had arrived to choose delegates for that convention, I took pains to go to the manufacturers of my city of St. Hyacinthe and I told them that I was afraid that the Liberal party, with the two factions of Montreal and Quebec, would alter, change and amend the acknow-

ledged policy of the Liberal party. I was afraid that they would ask for a reduction of tariff duties, and I wanted the manufacturers to help me, if that were possible, to have the Liberal party adhere to this platform of protection. During the convention, the authorities of the convention on three different occasions offered to give me an opportunity of addressing it, and I refused because I was not in sympathy with the platform which was prepared at the time, and I thought it was my duty first to remain true to my electors, to my principles and to the principles for which my province has fought since 1878.
On a former occasion, I stated on the floor of this House that the hour of Quebec would strike. The Government supporters thought that there was a threat, a menace in those words. I took pains to state that it was only a declaration. It was not necessary to have the ability of a prophet. Everybody knows that it is impossible to keep in a solid block the minority of a country in public affairs. This marvellous thing has been done once by a man who stood is this country, in the Empire, and especially in his own province, as the idol of his race and the representative of all our aspirations. This has been done once. It cannot be repeated. Where is the man in the ranks of the Liberal party who could go to-day to the province of Quebec and bring back here a solid Quebec block? I should like to be shown that man; but he does not exist. And mind you, Mr. Speaker, when the Quebec population was remaining solid in its principles, awaiting its opportunity it was not necessary to be a prophet to understand that the Government, composed as it is of groups and factions united on a certain principle but divided on other questions, would split one of these days, and that one of the groups or perhaps two would separate themselves from the Government; and that would be the time for the province of Quebec, if it knew how to wait for its hour. Now, Sir, is there anything wrong in that declaration? Nothing at all. It is a simple matter of good political sense, and nothing else.
Nobody can believe that the isolation of Quebec must not be terminated. It is impossible in a country like ours to leave aside a population of pretty nearly three millions out of a total of nine millions. These people must have representation in public affairs. They cannot be ignored for all time to come. Sir, because I hold the principles I have enunciated to the House

from my seat here, I have been attacked as a traitor and a renegade. What crime have I committed? To whom am I responsible? The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) this afternoon was trying to belittle the issue by talking of fish and bribery. The hon. member for Brome ought to know that the man who would be weak enough to allow himself to be bribed could not show his face any more in the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Brome should understand, even if he does not respect my belief, that there are situations in this life which require resolution. The hon. member for Brome may think it is all right for himself to represent a constituency of 13,000 souls when according to the last census, the unit of representation was 30,080. The hon. member for Brome should understand that when he speaks from his seat in the House, he speaks not for his own personal benefit, .but for those he represents on the floor of the House. He Speaks for his province, and for the benefit of his country, and, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Brome has that high esteem of himself, can he not respect the beliefs of others who, though they may not be as bright as he, yet are as honest as he is, and who. are entitled to their opinion as long as they are willing to fight for it? No, Sir. The hour of Quebec has struck, I repeat the words.
Why has it struck? Sir, it is the privilege of my province, and to the honour of my race, to have given to this country every time the darkest clouds rose over the horizon a man who was strong enough to command the respect of a majority of this country, and at the same time to command the obedience of the men of my race. In 1840, after the rebellion of 1837 and 1839 Lower and Upper Canada were united under circumstances that were more than dangerous. When, with the population in [DOT]Lower Canada double that of Upper Canada, with a deposit in the chartered banks of Lower Canada and a deficit in the finances of Upper Canada, both provinces were united on an equal footing as to representation and finances, Upper Canada to have half of the money deposited by Lower Canada and Lower Canada to take half the debt of Upper Canada, the Union was looked upon by my people as an insult and they refused to submit to it. Then Louis Hypolyte Lafontaine came into the public arena. He appealed to the majority in the country and appealed to his own people, and the Union Act was passed.
That Act may not have been a success from all points of view, but at all events it created an atmosphere once more of peace, harmony and traquility in this country. Then in 1849, when the annexation memorandum was signed, and when the Parliament buildings in Montreal were burned, when this country was on the verge of disruption, Cartier arose and appealed to the majority and to my people and they united together and peace was restored once more. In 1867, when the time had come for all the provinces in British North America to weld and work together for the expansion of the country, for the prosperity of its population, and for the agrandize-ment of our resources, Cartier was there again fighting night and day to secure the consummation of the British North America Act.
In 1896 when one of the smallest provinces fin this country saw the Federal Government threatening to encroach upon her school system, a man arose from the province of Quebec, a man of my race. This question had been taken from one tribunal to another during six years, and in the campaign of 1896 Laurier, appealing to all races, all creeds, and all provinces, made the statement " This question of the Manitoba schools has been dragging along for six years. Give me power, and in six months peace will be restored." He obtained power, and peace was restored inside of three months.
I do not pretend to be a Lafontaine, a Cartier, or a Laurier. No; my role is more humble and more modest than that, and as my so-called former friends are very fond of precedents I will turn to the world's history and cite a precedent for the stand I am now taking. In the early days of the Christian era, in the deserts of Judea, there was a man who preached the advent of a Saviour. This man was known as the Baptist, and when he was asked whether he himself was the Saviour, he answered that he was not worthy to untie the latchet of that Saviour's shoes; he was only the precursor of the Saviour, who would come to redeem humanity. The Baptist, having fulfilled his mission to the last, was beheaded, but the Saviour came and humanity was redeemed. To-day, Sir, standing in the wilderness of "no man's land," I am, like a Baptist, announcing to this House and to the country that at this time, when every race is hurling insult at the other, when every province is trying to fight every other, when every passion in men's minds is infuriated, a man will come from my province and from my race who will preach

the gospel of toleration and self-respect. He will appeal to the majority of the people of this country and he will show them that though his people constitute the minority, nevertheless there is no reason why the minority and the majority should not unite so that this country will have another era of happiness, of prosperity, of contentment, of good-will to men who love peace and harmony and are proud to live under the protection of the British Crown and our national institutions. I say, this man will come. The hour of Quebec has come, and this man will save the situation.


Mr. A. B. McCOIG (Kent):: I desire
at the outset, in common with other members who have spoken, to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address on the excellent way in which they have acquitted themselves. I can hardly, however, concur in all that has been said ljy the hon. gentleman who has just concluded (Mr. Gauthier). It did appear to me that from the first to last he was saying everything he could think of in an uncomplimentary way about the Labour party and the Farmers' party and the Liberal party, which are represented in this House, in I view of the portfolio which he seems so anxious to secure in the future. It comes with bad taste from the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) to ridicule all his former friends in the old Province of Quebec, and in one respect particularly I take exception to his remarks.
I object to the uncomplimentary way in which he referred to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) who was formerly Postmaster General in the Laurier Administration, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that . re-[DOT] presenting as I have the privilege to do, a constituency where a great number of French-Canadian citizens hold the high positions and occupy some of our best farms I was charged personally with the duty of conveying to the hon. member for Gaspe, in his hour of bereavement as a result of his great sacrifice to the cause of the country, in the loss of his son, the sincere sympathy of many of my constituents. When we hear an hon. gentleman ridiculing a citizen who has stood so high in the esteem of the people of this country in the past, I think we may safely assume that many of his words will fall on deaf ears not anly in Quebec but in every other part of the Dominion. In this respect I hope I shall be permitted to read an item or two which appeared in a newspaper in the province of Quebec and which I think will be of in-
terest to the members of this House. 1 quote the following:
Since the opening of Parliament the Hon. Mr. Lemieux occupies the seat immediately next to the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's, and that preferment is merited. A member of Par liament for the last 22 years, Mr. Lemieux by his assiduity, his industry, his correct be haviour, and his thoughtfulness in the fulfil ment of his duties has well earned the -sward of being officially acknowledged as Laurier's first lieutenant in the Province of Quebec.
However, it is on the floor of the House of commmons that the Hon. Mr. Lemieux shows to best advantage. Trained in the best traditions of parliamentary life, holding the tenets of the sound English Liberal faith, in constant sympathy with the views of ail the great men who have contributed by their speeches and their writings to the perfecting of parliamentary practice, he is wholly at ease when ttfking an active part in the various debates.
Could a greater compliment be paid to any Parliamentarian in this country than that contained in :the two extracts I have just read? And they were published in one of the Quebec newspapers which was controlled by the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe, and were his words over his own signature. These were the words of the hon. gentleman in regard to one of our Canadian statesmen, a man who well deserved the compliment. Yet to-night he sees fit to cast aspersion upon him. I will not make any accusations against the hon. gentleman, but we have seen by the press that he had been in communication with the Government with a view to securing a position that would bring him greater benefit than he might obtain as a private member; and because greater statesmen than he might be given a preference over him he gets up in his place and takes up two hours of the time of the House in saying unkind things of his former friends from the province of Quebec in this Parliament and in the local legislature. What confidence can the people of Canada have in the utterances of the hon. gentleman? At his words the ministers of the 'Government might well hold their heads down, from the Minister of Justice to the least among them. There were plaudits from the back-benchers in abundance when such -language was used by the hon. gentleman, but which one of those gentlemen opposite was brave enough to walk over the floor and shake hands with him and congratulate him? His only congratulations were his own handshakes, and he got a very cold reception from all friends whose cause he was pleading. I say that it comes with very bad taste from the hon. member, who recognised the ability of the member for Gaspe,

-a gentleman who sat at the right hand of the late Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Sir, the people of Canada, irrespective of nationality, many of whom were not his political supporters, were admirers of that great British Canadian Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and to-night, on the second anniversary of his death, they mourn his loss. Under such circumstances it is pathetic to think that one who was supposed to be a supporter of Sir Wilfrid and an admirer of the great work that he accomplished in his life time, would lend himself to the task of trying to drive a wedge between- the followers of that lamented statesman for the benefit of men who always did their utmost fo oppose him. I say, Sir, that such conduct on the part of the hon. gentleman exhibits the worst possible taste, and I believe it will have a contemptuous reception in the old province from which that hon. gentleman comes, as well as in the English speaking provinces. To-night I am in the unique position of occupying the same seat as the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe occupied not more than a year ago when that hon. gentleman, undertook to reply to a speech delivered by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat). On that occasion the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe assured the Government that the people of the province of Quebec had received bad treatment. Let me quote his actual words:
Speaking in any own name, and for my province, I will quote tlhe words of one of our public men who says that the province of Quebec is not in a state of mind to enter into any conference ; it has been misjudged; it has been badly treated; it has been slandered ; it is waiting for its hour and 'after that it will confer, but not before.
Waiting for the hour! In the interest of the province of Quebec? No, Sir, in the interest of the hon. member for St. - Hyacinthe himself. He was waiting for the hour to come that would, if possible, give him a better position. It was not the interest of his constituents or the citizens of the old province of Quebec that he was thinking of. He was waiting for an opportunity to get into the Government; but I can assure him, after studying the faces of members of the Cabinet and other hon. gentlemen opposite, that if ever a man crucified himself and sacrificed his chance of getting a high position in public life, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe has done this on the present occasion.
From the hon. gentleman's first remarks it would appear that he had been in consultation with the Prime Minister; he
uttered words and used arguments almost identical with those which the Prime Minister employed. He said that there should not be a general election until after the census had been taken; and he let the cat out of the bag when he said that the city of Montreal, which now has twelve representatives in this House, would, after a redistribution of seats, have twenty. He said that the unit of population would then be forty thousand instead of thirty thousand.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dollars.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the province of Quebec is the pivot of Confederation. It does not make any difference what the unit of population may be, the province of Quebec can only have sixty-five representatives in this Parliament. It is interesting to make a contrast between the remarks of the Prime Minister and those of the hon. gentleman. The Prime Minister, in his flowery and beautiful fashion, declares that we cannot have an election until we give the West its proper representation, and by way of a decoy the figures ten to twenty-five were suggested. But the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, as I have already said, let the cat out of the bag when he stated that it is to Montreal, Toronto, and the other big-cities of the Dominion that the Government is- anxious to give greater representation.
Let me make a suggestion in this connection. If the Government intends to hang on and not appeal to the country it should, regardless .of the stipulations of the Act of Confederation, start taking the census immediately and not wait until June. In the large cities and towns of Canada there are many men out of employment. In the City of Chatham there are twenty or thirty returned men who are anxious to get work, and these are men that are well, qualified to be employed in the census .taking and would give every satisfaction. I repeat, let the taking of the census be started at the earliest possible date so that the men who are out of employment will be able to get work now when they need it, and not wait until June when there will be no lack of employment. I hope the Government will give some consideration to this thought.
It was also interesting to hear the Prime Minister during his speech make reference to the "ill fated National Transcontinental Railway." Of that enterprise the Prime Minister spoke in the most mournful tones. Let me ask the Government why high

officials of the Canadian National Railways, at a time when fuel throughout the country was most expensive, allowed the ties to be removed from different railway tracks in Canada, piled up in cords and cords and the torch applied to them, instead of placing that fuel at the disposal of people in humble circumstances so as to enable them to keep their homes and their families warm. The Prime Minister may speak of this railway as "ill fated", but I do not think that it would be possible for any enterprise to succeed where such extravagance is practised. If a person were starting out in business he would employ the right class of men to make that business a success, and the same course should be pursued by the Government in regard to the National Railway System. It should employ men of the highest calibre and ability with the necessary knowledge to look after the important interests entrusted to them from time to time. But, Sir, what class of men has the Government been appointing in connection with the National Railway System? We find according to press announcements of July 7th, 1920, that the man who has been appointed to one of the most important positions on the National Railway System, with an elaborately furnished suite of offices in the City of Chicago, is no other person than Mr. DeWitt Foster, who was read out of the Conservative Party by the late Prime Minister, and sent back to his constituency, on account of the way he handled matters in connection with the purchase of horses for the Government during the late great war. That gentleman's management of affairs was so scandalous, it was so ridiculous and farcical, that it involved an expense of thousands and thousands of dollars to the people of Canada.
Yet, Sir, this man is sent to the city of Chicago to occupy one of the most important positions in connection with the Canadian National Railways. Is it any wonder that we hear my right hon. friend the Prime Minister speaking of the "ill-fated" National Transcontinental road when men of the type I have referred to are associated with our national railway system? How can you expect that system to be a success, how can you expect not to have deficits, when such men are on the staff? Last year the deficit amounted to $47,000,000, this year it is estimated that it will reach $65,000,000.
What does it mean? It means that we must expect a continuance of deficits if such things as I am about to bring to the

attention of the House are typical. I am informed that the most important train leaving the city of Toronto, instead of being filled with passengers who had paid their fares, was composed of special cars for the benefit of a few friends of the Government. The would-be passengers who were prepared to pay had to cross over to the ticket office of the competing road and buy tickets for Ottawa. Then I am advised on very reliable authority-and the Government can ascertain whether my information is correct or not-that the trains running from Vancouver to Toronto on the days before Christmas were loaded to capacity, but fifty per cent of the passengers were travelling on passes. If this be untrue, no person will be more pleased than myself, because if half of those passengers were travelling on passes, it goes to show why to some extent the people who are trying to ship their products are being held up by the higher freight rates now being charged; and the necessity of higher freight rates is no doubt because the passenger trains are not paying. In view of this condition pf affairs, it seems to me incumbent upon the Government to appoint a committee of this House to deal with the statements which I have brought to their attention. If the Government have the interests of the country at heart, I am confident an investigation will be held.
The hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) may smile, but this is too important a question for him or any other leading member of the Cabinet to smile at. An investigation of the conductors' books will show whether the statement I have made is well founded or not. If it is not correct, all well and good; but if fifty per cent of the passengers at that season of the year were travelling on passes, it is important that the country should know it and that the practice should be promptly discontinued, as our National railways need all the revenue that they san possibly secure to reduce their operating deficits.
Now, Sir, let me go a step further. We have to-day advised the Government to appeal to the people, or place their resignations in the hands of the Governor General so that he may call upon other persons to form a Government which will meet with the endorsation of the country. The right hon. the Prime Minister will probably think that our advice does not count for very much, but let me assure him that the advice we are tendering him now is just as sound as the advice which we proffered

when his Government were about to establish the Board of Commerce. We told them then that the appointment of such a board would be a detriment to the country and would be barren of results. What followed on the appointment of that board has confirmed the soundness of our advice. It will be remembered that the members of that board sat for months, drawing thousands of dollars in salaries and expenses, but not one profiteer was ever put in jail, nor one dollar added to the Treasury as a result of their efforts to put a stop to profiteering.
What we contended then and what we contend now is that we should have a public prosecutor appointed to take action against profiteers. We have complaints, particularly from our returned men, that profiteering still continues. For instance, notwithstanding that hides are to-day cheaper than they have been for years, those men complain that their children's shoes cost the same price as when the war was raging. We hear |rom the farmers that they are getting only $13.50 a hundred for their hogs, and yet to-day bacon is twenty cents a pound dearer in Canada than in England. These two cases alone are sufficient to justify an investigation.
If we are going to allow these combines to exist, we cannot expect to attract as many people to assist us in agriculture as we need to-day. I have been informed that in the case of Peterson versus the Dominion Tobacco Company, tried at Sandwich in December, 1919, before Mr. Justice Middleton, there was filed as an exhibit a telegram from the representative of the companies in the Tobacco Buyers' Association to the Macdonald company of Montreal, who were not members of the association, asking them, in effect, to come in and agree to keep the price down; and that Stewart, of the Macdonald company, swore in evidence that his company was asked to agree with the other companies not to pay more in 1919 than thirty cents per pound. This, Sir, went to show that there was an attempt to combine against the producers of tobacco in the counties of Kent and Essex, which meant that the men who returned from overseas and took up tobacco growing had their tobacco hanging in their barns with no chance of selling, it. This year there has been a tremendous tobacco crop and from the absence of buyers the farmers suspect a combine has been formed to force down prices, to the detriment of the growers. Is it not worth while for the Government to take
this matter up, for it will be remembered that the men who went overseas were promised that combines would not be allowed, and those men naturally expect to have that promise redeemed.
To-day, Sir, we are trying to get men to locate upon the land. And what do we find? We find that the agricultural implement manufacturing companies, not only the Massey Harris Company, but the International Harvester Company, the Cock-shutt Company and all the other big implement concerns, have raised the price of binders $30 over last year's price, which was the highest on record. How Sir, can we expect to induce men to locate upon the farms if we allow these implement concerns to extract such exorbitant prices from those who have to use these implements? Last year it took 250 bushels of oats to buy a binder; to-day it takes 700 bushels. I find that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) is, going to follow me. If that is the case I ask him to challenge the statement that I have made. The same thing applies on other agricultural machinery all down the line. This is a matter that should receive some consideration at the hands of the Government.
In conclusion, I have only this to say, that if at the next general election the Government expect to be returned with anything like a respectable following, the matters which I have brought to the attention of the House will have to be given greater consideration than they have received in the past.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne always covers a very wide field. A number of interesting subjects are mentioned in the Speech itself, but it is not necessary that one should confine himself to those particular subjects; a general latitude is permissible on the part of one who addresses the House on this occasion.
But before taking up the matters to which I wish to refer in connection with the Address, I want to say a word with regard to our new Prime Minister. It is the first opportunity that I have had of speaking in the House since the right hon. gentleman was elevate to the high position he now occupies. I have followed his career for a number of years: He came from that part of the country in which I have the honour to live,-and that does not make him any the worse. He combines

the steadfastness, carefulness and shrewdness of the East with the push and progress of the West, and that combination should go to make a man of breadth and of enterprise, a man eminently fitted to fill the high position to which my right hon. friend has been called. So far as I am concerned, though I am an independent man in some ways, I profess to give my allegiance to the Prime Minister so far as I can see my way to do it-whenever he brings forward measures that I believe to be in the general interests of the country. I do not think, from what I know of him that he will bring forward many measures, either now or at any time, that are not in the general interests of the people. I wish, therefore, that the tenure of office of the right hon. gentleman as the Prime Minister of Canada may be a long and successful one.
We have had a rather interesting exhibition this afternoon. There has been more or less of a family fight; and of course that is always "pie" to us if it occurs on the other side.


Mr. BELAND:: One-sided.


William Foster Cockshutt: I can quite imagine that some of the remarks of the member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) were not very much relished by gentlemen opposite. It was really a study to sit here and watch the varrying shades of contempt and disgust that occasionally played upon the features of hon. gentlemen on the other side.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), the gentleman with the loud voice and the small constituency, came in for a fair share of the speaker's attention. I have always thought that the member for Brome, if he kept on long enough, would make a convert of some kind, and apparently he succeeded this afternoon, because his eloquent remarks on free trade and various other things so incensed the member for St. Hyacinthe that he could hold his seat no longer, and the result was the exhibition that we had of a family squabble. I am sorry that the hon. member for Brome could not see what was coming. He has been trying for this for a long time, and finally his chickens have come home to roost, and he has made a convert. However, it was a kind of backfire business that he did not expect; it has hit the preacher so that he is really in a worse position than the man who was supposed to be the sinner.

The member for Kent, (Ont.) (Mr. McCoig) has attempted to belittle what the member for St. Hyacinthe said. But when the papers come out to-morrow and the speeches of the two hon. gentlemen are read, it will be found that the speech of the member for St. Hyacinthe has created an impression of a very different nature, from that created by any remarks of the member for Kent. Whatever may be said with regard to the right or the wrong of the situation, as the member for St. Hyacinthe sees it, there is no doubt that he spoke from a full heart and with a conscientious desire to do what he conceived to be a very difficult, and perhaps, a somewhat dangerous duty to his fellow-men, especially with regard to the Province of Quebec. I give him all cred for having made one of the most impressive speeches from the province of Quebec that I have heard in a good many days. If a few more of our friends across the way will study questions of the day in the same light as the member for St. Hyacinthe has done we shall have a rapprochement between the old Provinces of Ontario and Quebec the like of which has not been seen for many years. That would be a very desirable consummation indeed, and for my part I hold out both hands to my hon. friend.
The member for Brome took great exception to the Prime Minister possibly opening a little seat on this side for one or two repentant gentlemen from the other side, but almost in the same breath he said he welcomed from this side the member from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) who was expected shortly to take his seat on the Opposition benches. The inconsistency of the member for Brome was certainly remarkable when he could make a bid for the member for Halifax to cross the floor and occupy a front bench-which is nearly a Cabinet position, because no doubt all the members of the new Cabinet made up from members on the other side when they came in will be named by the member for Brome. The member for Halifax, therefore, might consider himself as good as a cabinet minister. But
9 p.m. having said this, why should the member for Brome be offended if the Prime Minister should say that he would welcome gentlemen from the other side? It has long been the desire of Ontario men to have representatives from the province of Quebec sitting on this side as they used to. We can sit here more comfortably with them alongside of us than we can simply as a number of Ontario men

sitting together. In the old days the good old Conservative party had the backing of the French-Canadians to a great extent- in fact, the backbone of Sir John Macdonald's party on many occasions were the representatives from the province of Quebec, and it seems to me they had quite as much light in those days as we have in these.
There are many respects in which the provinces of Quebec and Ontario are alike. Quebec is a manufacturing centre; so is Ontario, and at such a time as this I take off my hat to Quebec as being probably the mpst stable labour province in Canada to-day. Quebec has shown itself during the last two or three years to be a province with a great deal of self-respect and a great deal of backbone, and one that is doing more, perhaps, in the reconstruction period following the Great War than any other province of our Dominion. While we, in Ontario, and our brethren too, in the West, are giving way to all kinds of fad legislation and calling for every conceivable kind of government, Quebec sticks to the old rule, maintains the old stand, attends to her own knitting, keeps her factories running-supplied by the labour, the brawn and the brain of the good inhabitants of that province. I give them credit, then, for playing at this time a very important part in the re-establishment of Canada after the war.
Now, having said this much I do not wish to enter into a further discussion of the family affairs of my hon. friends opposite. Before touching, however, upon some of the items specifically dealt with in the Speech from the Throne, I feel that I must pay some little attention to one or two remarks made by my friend from Kent (Mr. McCoig). I understand that he comes from a tobacco district. I do not know whether he himself smokes much of the tobacco grown there, but if he does perhaps that, would be a higher recommendation of it than we would otherwise have. I understand that the tobacco growers in his constituency have recently asked that the modest duty of one dollar a pound be placed upon tobacco. What percentage that would be I must leave the hon. member for Kent to calculate. So far as I know the price of tobacco in the western section, it runs from twenty-five up to forty-five cents per pound. Therefore, a modest duty of one dollar per pound on this would sound fairly big as a percentage, being somewhere between two and three hundred per cent. My hon.
friend has taken occasion, as he often does, to allude to the firm which bears my name, but with the management of which I have no connection. He informs the House and the country that we have raised the price of our binders twenty or thirty per cent. If he knows the firm as well as he ought to know it, because it is no secret that the hon. gentleman was at one time an agent for the company which he is so glad to abuse on various occasions, he knows they manufacture no mowers and no binders and never have done so.


Archibald Blake McCoig: You handle the Frost & Wood mowers and binders in western Ontario.


William Foster Cockshutt: The handling of them is one thing and the manufacture is quite another. It is true we take orders for and sell those implements, but not a single one is manufactured by the firm, and the hon. gentleman knows that perfectly well; so that when he speaks of the Cockshutt firm raising the prices of those implements, he knows he is making a misrepresentation because they have nothing at all to do with the manufacture of those machines. Further, as a practical farmer, as I presume he is, he knows that during the war, during the last five years, any farmer either in eastern or western Canada going to any market in this country with a load of produce, whether it were pork, beans, wheat, oats, barley or rye or any of the products of the farm, could take back, as a result of the sale of that load, as many implements as he ever did before the war. I do not think that can be said of everything, but it can be said of the implement business, and of all industries in Canada none, perhaps, suffered more than, did that same implement business. I do not, however, want to speak of that. The time will come later in the session when we can take care of that, but I do not like my hon. friend who was carried away by his feelings-and possibly he had some good excuse because he was smarting, under the remarks of the hon. mepiber for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier)-to make such sweeping statements as he did. But we know that as regards the products of his constituency, which are sugar beets, corn and all those items, he is very careful not to advocate any policy that would bring any less to the growers of any of those products than they have received in the past. How he can pose as a free trader -and I am not quite sure whether he does

so entirely-when he has two or three sugar factories and several other large industries in his riding, I can hardly understand; nor can I understand how he can advocate that all barriers should be removed and at the same time retain those in his county. I must apologize for having spent so much time upon the hon. member for Kent (Mr. MeCoig) because I am not sure that his remarks deserve it.
I want, before going further, to refer to the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who I am sorry is not in the chamber. I am not going to spend many moments upon his amendment, but I desire to point out to him one or two things in connection with it. In the first place I hold in my hand the Brantford Expositor, which is well known as one of the staunch Liberal papers of Ontario and of Canada, and this is what it has to say with regard to the point at issue:
If the Hon. Arthur Meighen holds the reigns of power long enough to pass the new Redistribution Bill based on the census taken this year and frankly implements the obligation to secure an equitable representation by population and then appeals to the country, he will pursue a wise course of statesmanship and one hard to successfully challenge.
I recommend those remarks to my hon. friend who moved this amendment. He says that this Government has no mandate. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) pointed out several mandates which this Government had, and that the Opposition were ready to acknowledge that the Government had the mandate when they raised the indemnity last session and my hon. friends pocketed it. My hon. friends say nothing about that. This Government only about three years ago was elected by the largest majority of both members and popular vote of any Government that I have ever known of in Canada.


Mr. CAHILL:: Where are they now?


William Foster Cockshutt: There are many of
them here as my hon. friend will find out, and they are here to stay for quite a little while in spite of the efforts of the hon. member of Pontiac to dislodge them. I suppose he would carry them out on railway trains if he had the opportunity, as he is a great railway expert, but I do not want to be diverted from this matter by the hon. gentleman. This Government wa^ elected by the largest majority of the popular vote that any Government ever received in Canada. That cannot be successfully contradicted. Therefore, they

had the mandate from the people to occupy the treasury benches not only for the duration of the war, but for five years, in spite of anything that may be said to the contrary. I knew something about this fight up in our section: I had a little to do with it, and I never once heard the question raised as to the right of the Government to retain power so long as the Parliamentary term was not exceeded and, as well known, that term was to be five years.
My hon. friend complains that this mandate does not exist now, although it has run only about three years. Let me point out to him the inconsistency of himself and many of his friends in this regard. * We have to-day in two of the provinces at least, in Manitoba and in Ontario, Governments sitting that have not now and never had any mandate from the people. The Ontario Government polled only about one-third of the vote. The Premier of Ontario was unheard of on the platform throughout the election; he was not even a candidate, and the Farmers' Party and the Labour Party between them polled only about one-third of the votes that were polled in the recent election in Ontario. Still, my hon. friend does not question their mandate. Oh no, they are good for it. Why? Because he considers they are his friends; he says that there is little difference between them. Well, I am sorry for the farmers if there is little difference between the leader of the Opposition and his followers and the following of the Agrarian party. But there is the fact that the Government in Ontario to-day, sitting there and legislating for this great province, are there by reason of about one-third of the provincial vote cast in the recent election. It is true they are largely farmers and they possibly do not recognize that a citizen living in a city has a right to value his vote as highly as a man on the farm, because in Ontario, in the city of Toronto for instance, it takes the vote of three men to offset the vote of one man on the farm.


Mr. MAHARG:: Is the present Government responsible for that?


William Foster Cockshutt: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend says "hear, hear." The chances are, if the statement of my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) is true, that my hon. friend from Brome may find that his little constituency has disappeared from the map after re-distribution, and holding the views he does, I question very much if he could get a seat in Montreal where the people have some intelligence on economic questions. My hon. friend from Brome represents, I believe the smallest body of citizens in the Dominion of Canada that are in one hive, some 13,000 people. That means that Montreal, the city of intelligence in the province of Quebec, the city of big men and big things, requires from 60,000 to 70,000 votes to offset the vote of 13,000 people in the little county of Brome. Oh, my, that is a beautiful little county. I am somewhat surprised that a gentleman coming from so small a place should develop such a pugnacious tendency as my hon. friend has. He certainly had broadened out beyond the confines of his constituency. To hear him lay down the law, not only on free trade and protection, but all the rest of it, you would think he was the oracle of the province of Quebec, but after hearing the opinion the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville holds of him I have been forced to a different conclusion. My hon. friend certainly thought he would put the Premier in a very bad hole to-day when he pointed his finger at him and dared him to offer a bait to any of the gentlemen sitting around my hon. friend. Has my hon. friend any misgivings in his heart that the Premier even of the Dominion of Canada could tempt any of those just men to cross the floor under any condition whatsoever? I cannot imagine how my hon. friend could think the Premier had sufficient to offer of the loaves and fishes. After hearing the hon. member for Brome speak you would think you could take him up to the top of the mountains here, the Laurentians that the hon. gentleman knows so well, and offer him all the Kingdom he could survey from there, all that glory, if only he would cross the floor, but never conceive of him coming across.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I hope not.


William Foster Cockshutt: No, he could not be tempted. But the hon. gentleman, apparently, having seen the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville go away from him

down into No Man's land, is afraid that the offers of the Prime Minister may win over some of the gentlemen around him. I must admitthat this microbe of protection is very catching. It has got into the heart of my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe-Rouville in spite of my hon. friend from Brome, and it is liable to break out yet in unexpected places. I imagined I saw a wave of unrest this afternoon move over the features of some of my friends the Agrarians opposite, when they found the plague of protection had got into the very next row to them. However, that will no doubt disappear. We know these gentlemen are studying economics, because they have told us so. I wonder if they could also tell us that they study economy as well. I have not found much evidence of that.


Michael Clark: The luxury tax has made us study economy.


William Foster Cockshutt: That is the kind of economy the farmer is practising in Ontario. He is not practising economy with the public monies. I was going to point out to my hon. friends that in the province of Ontario the so-called Agrarian Government has the biggest expenditure ever, and when you find fault they say: Wait till you see us next year. The expenditure in the province of Ontario under this new combination runs close up to $75,000,000 for the past year, a sum vastly in excess of the requirements of this House when I first came into it a few years ago.
Mr. JOHN A. MAHARG (Maple Creek) : How much of that expenditure was on capital account?


William Foster Cockshutt: I am quite ready to tell my hon. friend if he gives me time. I am pointing out that the total expenditure of the new Government in Ontario, which had economy as one of the planks in their platform, lexceeds that of any previous government by about $25,000,000. I think it is that much greater than the expenditure in the previous year under the late government, and that is only little compared with what they intend to do. They say, like Mr. Tarte said at one time: Wait till you see us next year. The expenditure that we are confronted with in the province of Ontario at the present time under the new order of things will stagger the people of this old province, especially the tax-payers. They will have to pay pretty dearly for the experiment of a group government and a new order of things in the province of Ontario. In reply to my

hon. friend from Maple Creek, whose question was a very fair one, I understand that the expenditure on current account runs between $22,000,000 and $23,000,000, and that the expenditure on capital account is pretty nearly $50,000,000. My hon. friend will probably know whether that is correct or not, but I understand that is about how the figures stand. Then new taxes are proposed, five or six in number, only one of which will slightly touch the farmer. All . the rest will go to the city people. That is how the farmers are showing their favour to the cities, by giving them five times as much to pay in taxation as they pay themselves.
Now, they went in with a flourish of trumpets with regard to economy, and when our hon. friends opposite come into power, as they expect to do in the near future in this Dominion, in addition to the said economics which we have been assured they are studying, they will also have to study economy, or we shall find the expense of the Dominion jumping up in the same proportion that we in the province of Ontario are confronted with at the present time.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: Is the hon.
gentleman aware that he is in Ottawa and not in Toronto?


William Foster Cockshutt: It is very kind of my hon. friend to remind me of that faet. We are told by the hon. Mr. Drury that he is only occupying his position in Ontario temporarily, that he expects to give the economic situation at Ottawa his early attention, and therefore we are justified in connecting Toronto with Ottawa in that respect, because our friends, though new on the job, are very ambitious and I can tell you they are excellent spenders. They not only spend money lavishly, but they spend, according to the doctrines laid down by some of our friends from the West, a large part of the money on the other side of the line; and then we wonder why the Canadian dollar is shrinking and ever shrinking, and why it takes $1.15 or $1.20 to pay for a dollar's worth of goods. It is because of the policy that my hon. friends would thrust upon this country, by which they would increase still further what is already far too large, that is to say, purchases from the United States. One would think that the legislation now proposed at Washington, and which we are told the Senate yesterday passed, would give a little new light to my hon. friends opposite. What about the

Fordney Bill? Have they heard about it? Has my hon. friend from Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) realized that the Fordney tariff proposes a duty of 30 cents a bushel on wheat-


An Hon. MEMBER:: Forty cents.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, forty cents on wheat, j20 per cent on flour, 15 cents a bushel on barley and all along the line; on cattle 3 cents per pound, and all the rest of it. Still we find that some of our hon. friends are ready to advocate that in spite of all this treatment which we have received or are about to receive from our neighbors to the south of us, they would continue not only the present liberal policy that has been pursued towards the United States but would increase the advantage still further by a large reduction of duties. So tha to-day the minister in Toronto, Mr. Smith, I think, who brought down the budget, complains that during the past year he has lost $800,000 on the exchange situation alone. Why did he deal so much in the United States? Why did he buy to such an extent in the United States as to incur an additional debt of $800,000 in the province of Ontario on exchange alone? Let the Hon. Mr. Biggs tell him why and how. When he wants road rollers or machinery for his roads does he buy them in Canada? I live close to the neighbourhood where a good deal of money was spent, not to much advantage, J am sorry to say, and along that road you can see evidences of where he buys rollers. It is plainly marked on the implements themselves showing that they come from the United States, and our dollar is going steadily down. I am glad to know that this Government proposes, in the light of the investigation that has taken place, to try to remedy some of these difficulties by giving a tariff that will be more safe and sound for the industries of Canada, and that will restore to its rightful place the value of the Canadian dollar. I believe there is -no better dollar in the world than the Canadian dollar. We have resources in Canada that make our money just as good as any in the world, and therefore it is penalizing us in a way that should not be permitted in this country that we should buy $2 worth of goods in the United States for every $1 we sell them, and that has been the fact within the last two or three years. We have bought $2 for every $1 sold them. My policy is to buy less and sell more in the United States and thus restore the balance
which has so far gone against us. That is a safe and sound policy and I recommend it to my hon. friends. I do not want to be hard on my Agrarian friends over the way. I am glad to see a good body of them here, and I think it is a pity sometimes, when I see them kept here all day long and late at night, that the rosy complexions and rotund figures of some of our swarthy brethren from the soil should he depleted, so to speak, by having to attend to public business in the House of Commons. Of course, I am somewhat interested in not wishing to see the group grow too rapidly. The hon. member for Maple Creek, in spite of his heterodox notions on some matters of business and public policy, looks like a man who has a good conscience, in the ruddy complexion and youthful appearance he shows in the House of Commons. I congratulate my hon. friend that in spite of all the strenuous efforts he has put forth in the interests of the Agrarian party he is looking so very hearty as I see him to-night.	-
I did not intend to dwell for more than a few moments on the tariff, and I have said already more than I intended to say on that question. Before I resume my seat I wish to direct attention to two or three matters on which possibly I may not be quite in line with some 'of my colleagues on this side of the House. I said, in the first place, when paying my tribute of respect to the new Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Meighen), that I intended to follow him on all possible occasions. But I must say, as I have said on previous occasions, that in so far as the much-vaunted League of Nations is concerned, I am still a doubter. I am sorry to have to make that declaration, but I am glad to know that there must be either in the mind of His Excellency or in those of some of his advisers, somewhat the same opinion as I have myself with regard to the League of Nations, because I find, in the fifth line of the clause dealing with that subject, that it is termed a "great experiment." Truly, a great experiment, Mr. Speaker. I was very much interested and very much enlightened by the address of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) yesterday in dealing with that matter. He gave us some very enlightening information with regard to the aims of this great League of Nations that has been formed. I could have hoped that he would have dwelt not only upon what appeared to be the sunny side of the League, but on a few other mat-



ters that have perplexed and bewildered us and caused us some regret. For instance, what about disarmament? I understand that that question was shelved. Again, for example, what about reparations? What about indemnities? It is true that the hon. gentleman in speaking on this subject told us that they were going to cut across the history of six thousand years and reverse the old order of things. It has always been the order of things in the past that to the victors in war belong the spoils. It may be a false doctrine, but it has always existed, and it seems to me that in making peace, if we have won the war we have lost the peace, or some of the pieces at least. It may be a false doctrine but it was always there; and it seems to me that in making the peace if we won the war we have lost the peace, or we have lost some of the pieces. What about making Germany pay?
Some hon. GENTLEMEN: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: We in Canada are
to be bled hard for a generation to pay for the cost of this great war. Do we forgive the Germans their debt? Do we say that after bringing that terrible ruin upon this world, after bringing ruin to a large part of France and turning nine millions of people out of their homes, and after devastating Belgium, Roumania, Serbia, and all those countries of Europe, that our delegates shall come back without any proposal with regard to what we are going to make Germany pay? Because that is one of the very few arguments that a German understands. He does understand though when you tap him in the pocket; it is one of the most sensitive parts of his constitution. I would like the Minister of Justice and the late President of the Privy Council to deal still further with this matter, and I believe they will do so. I should like them to take up one or two of these knotty points, and tell us what they are going to make Germany do with regard to reparation to France, to Belgium, and to those devastated countries, and tell us whether there is any possibility of Canada receiving some slight share of the immense indemnity that should be paid by reason of her financial sacrifice. Talk about taxation! I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is being taxed in a way that we have never known before. That is the case, and yet some of our agrarian friends say, "Put on an income tax." I have had the privilege of paying two income taxes, one to the Dominion Government and one to the local muni-

cipality, within the last six months. I expect to have to pay another before the year is out, making three within a year. I tell you that many of our people are feeling this taxation and feeling it keenly, and in all fairness I say to the Ministry, and especially to the' Minister of Finance, that you cannot keep the wheels of commerce going in this country if you are going to take all the profits and a good deal of the capital. Because you have got to pay whether you make money or not. They will allow you to pay on those things on which you make a profit, but if you make a loss you must not take that into consideration -that is not in the bargain. I am glad to notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Government proposes to revise the Income Tax Act. I am glad to know that, because I think it is a wise announcement which will be received with satisfaction by the country. I do not believe that this Government, or any government, desires to take wrongfully from a man anything that he possesses. As I understand it, a government sets the standard of business morality for the country in which it rules-I thing that is a fair proposition-and that no act should be done, either by a strong government or any kind of a government, that would be opposed to justice and would not bear the light of investigation as an honest transaction. I feel that in the hurry of last session there was put through in the Income Tax Bill some of the most iniquitous features that I have ever seen in any legislation. I make these remarks in order that our friends on this side may take notice and during this session rectify what I believe is a grievous wrong. The Income Tax Act makes you your own assessor. You have got to assess yourself, they are not going to give you your bill any more. Formerly the bill was sent in by the man who was going to collect it, but not now. It is going.to be made up by yourself, and you are warned that if you make a mistake of ten per cent you will be fined at that rate on the mistake you made. If you make a twenty per cent mistake you will be fined half the amount of the capital concerned; and if you make a mistake of over twenty per cent woe betide you, because you will be liable to a fine of $10,000 and to six months' imprisonment. Now in all justice I say, Mr. Speaker, that such a state of things as that should be rectified in this Dominion. I am glad to know that such a proposal is on the agenda, and before the session is over we will possibly have that rectified.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two with regard to another matter. There are quite a few in Canada who are ready to pull down everything that has been built up with the greatest pains for a thousand years past. I mean in Britain, and in Canada, our laws and a large part of our constitutions are copied from Britain. These persons are prepared to sacrifice all that has been built up at such pains for some current fad that has never been tried out and which is not likely to succeed. That should not obtain with such a people as we have in this Dominion. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that it is the part of good citizenship at the present time to play safe, to advocate no change but what will be for the better; and if you are not absolutely sure that it will be for the better, stick to what you have until you know. If this country, and if civilization itself, is to be saved, there must be more care taken by public men and by those who guide public thought than has been witnessed in Canada in the past. During the past two or three years we have had every kind of heterodox preaching from every soap box that could be found in the province of Ontario. We have it in Ontario and it extends to many of the other provinces both East and West. This is a state of things that should not exist, and I rejoice that our good old friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) has a resolution on the Order Paper, that is to come up a little later in the session, in which he deals with Empire matters. This is no time, Mr. Speaker, to cut the old flag down, to tear apart the few remaining threads that hold Canada to the Mother land. We have but four of them remaining and yet right here in the city of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario and in the heart of the Dominion, we have had it recommended recently by one high in authority that the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be done away with, and that the Governor General should no longer come from overseas but should be appointed in Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend from Brome, who is ready to be carried about by every wind of doctrine and every fad that comes down the line, says "Hear, hear" to the former statement. I wonder if my hon. friend would not call for the Queen of Sheba to come back and rule if it were possible to get her here.


An Hon. MEMBER:: No petticoat
Government.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend is
ready to call for anything rather than what he is getting. He is getting a very fair government, why not keep it? Why should we, I say, wish for a moment to cut loose these few remaining threads that bind Canada to the Motherland? Let me tell you what these threads are, as I can see them to be. There is the King-long live the King! There is the flag-long wave the flag! There is the appeal to the Privy Council-long may it continue! Because that appeal has stood between us and a great many very difficult disputes in the past. If time would permit me I could point out where, in respect to the province of Ontario in the past, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Oliver Mowat-a name that was known throughout the length and breadth of the province at that time-had a life and death struggle about an increase of territory. Sir John said "Not one acre of land, not one stick of timber will you get." Sir Oliver Mowat on the other hand said "We will have both." The dispute was carried to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and although I was against Sir Oliver and in favor 6f Sir John I must say that I did not shed any tears when the Privy Council said "Sir Oliver is right on this occasion and Ontario gets both the acres and the timber." [DOT] There is just one case of the value of ar, appeal when a difficulty arises between a province and the Dominion. What could be better than this appeal? And yet we have a man, high in authority in the province of Ontario, who has advocated in Ottawa within recent days that this right of appeal should be done away with. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is no time to tear down any of the safeguards that surround our constitution. The world is full of unrest; tfie Mother Country is beset with troubles and cares, both from without and within; the nation is in peril to-day -Lloyd George tells us so. Will we in Canada, who have practically no grievance, give it out to the world that we, too, are full of unrest and want to cut the painter? Are we going to have an election, as they have had in South Africa recently, to decide whether or not we will stay with the Motherland? I hope not. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the enemies of the Empire are abroad, they are sowing the seeds of discord wherever they can be sown, and the attempt is being made even in some parts of Canada to raise the red flag and to call not only for the dissolution of the British

Empire, but for the overthrow of constituted Government in this and other parts of the Empire.
In a time such as this none of us who wish well to our country and to our Empire can afford to experiment in any degree with any of those ties that have held us so long to that good old land over the sea. I, for one, trust that I shall not live to see the day when the few remaining threads that hold us to the Motherland from which many of us come will be cut asunder, because bad as may be the example of some ,Britishers, and bad as the rule may be said to be in some parts of the Empire, the world has yet to show any better constitution, any greater safeguards to our liberties, to our rights and to our religious freedom than has been brought to us by reason of the benign rule that has been handed out to the Dominions from over the seas in a very mild way; and we have had not only all, but much more liberty than is enjoyed in most of the countries of the world.
This then in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, is no time to advocate any of those changes that the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Me-Master) would so lightly adopt overnight and repent of on the morrow, because I am sure he would repent when he saw the evil he had done; but once he cuts the painter and casts off, he will find no place of repentance, though he should seek it in tears. I beseech him to be a little more guarded when he applauds every fad that comes down the line and is prepared to adopt almost anything in the way of legislation that will bring a change-especially a change of Government. The hon. gentleman does not recognize a good Government when he sees one.


Mr. COPP:: We have not seen one for a long time.


William Foster Cockshutt: It is the kind of glasses he wears with the result that he cannot see the qualities possessed by the Government that occupies the treasury benches at the present time.
But I hope, Mr. Speaker, whether the appeal to the people come early or whether it be delayed, that the electorate will recognize that we have about as good a form of government-I am not speaking of this particular Government-as exists in any country in the world, and that no attempt will be made in such times as these to upset the apple-cart, to change any of the vital parts of our constitution by the introduction of fads. I see my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) smiling; he

has the referendum and the recall in his mind; I call those fads which we do not want to adopt in this country. I hope that when the appeal comes, whether the party opposite to me or the party on this side or the Agrarian party should succeed to power-and there is quite a possibility that my agrarian friends will he found in the majority, for elections are very uncertain-


Michael Clark: They are very uncertain.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am glad that my hon. friend from Red Deer agrees with me that elections are very uncertain. I believe that if he agrees with me to that extent he is going to vote about the same way as I am on this amendment, because it is safer to hang on to a seat that you are sure of for one year than it is to take the chance of a seat for five years which may not eventuate. I think my hon. friend, who in the absence of the real leader is leading the Agrarian party, is a man on whose judgment I can rely in this respect, and I feel that my words have not been in vain when I get corroboration from the hon. member that he thinks that axiom which I have just pronounced is a true one. I hope he will act on it; and as some of his followers are comparatively new in the House, if he instructs them that he thinks the best interests of the Agrarian party would be served on the present occasion by voting against the amendment and in favour of the continuance of this Government until the census has been taken and redistribution made, I think he will carry conviction to his own constituents and to the people generally in the great provinces in the West, j
I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for thus far trespassing upon the patience of the House. I feel that I have not done anything like justice to the various questions mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but at the same time I feel that I was justified in making these few remarks, and I hope that the hon. member who has moved the amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King), although he has not heard them, will read them before he casts his vote, and will realize that he will be inconsistent in pushing that amendment now after what I have pointed out is going on in the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba.


Mr. C. G. POWER (South Quebec) :: Mr. Speaker, allow me in the time-honoured fashion to congratulate the mover and

seconder of the Address. Though one belongs to the older generation of parliamentarians and the other to the new, they have both worthily fulfilled the task entrusted to them. It is to their credit that they discharged so well the somewhat thankless and politically unprofitable task of bolstering up a dying party. The compliments which they addressed to the ministry and to the Government I cap make no objection to, for I agree fully with the old saying-de mortuis nil nisi bonum.
In reference to the other speakers, We have had two who have given us highly instructive and entertaining addresses on the League of Nations. One, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) seems to be strongly in favour of this grand institution; and the other, the hon. member who has just at down (Mr. Cockshutt), would appear to be rather violently oposed to it. I am sorry, for I hardly think that the opinions either of the Minister of Trade and Commerce or of the hon. member for Brantford will influence in the slightest degree the statesmen of the world who have founded the League.	.
We had another address this afternoon

or, rather, a performance-and I wish to make but a slight reference to it. 1 can only hope that whe.n the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) crosses the floor of the House he will be as true and faithful to his new friendships and to his new friend as he was to the old. I can only hope and pray that he will be as worthy of the trust and confidence of hon. members opposite as he has shown himself to-day to be worthy of our trust and confidence.
I congratulate the new leader of the new party which is now facing us, but not upon the party which he has acquired, the very weakness of which must cause him many a wakeful night. I hope for his sake that he will give the people the chance to deprive him of his friends and so enable him to return to his normal state of mind. I congratulate him, but not on being the choice from such a field; I give him credit for being worthy of better rivals. Nor do 1 congratulate him on the colleagues whom he has inherited; were I to say too much about that I might be accused of sarcasm in vaunting his legacy. But I do congratulate him from the bottom of my heart on having attained the highest position in the gift of the Canadian people. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe)
corrects me-the highest position in the gift of his Tory friends. Fortune may have favoured him in eliminating from the field other more popular and, perhaps, worthier rivals. It may have favoured him too, in that those members of his Cabinet and those of his colleagues who were not quite certain that he would make the best Prime Minister were unable to put before their followers and before the Tory party one who was better fitted for the position than himself. However, we must say this for him; that his elevation is due, to a large extent, to his own untiring energy, to his own perseverance, to his own courage, and to his undoubtedly high talent. We are quite willing to acknowledge those talents. We are quite willing, from having felt them, to admit the weight and temper of his blows. We are willing to admit also that time and again he has been called upon to save the threatened citadel of Toryism and that time and again he has given unsparingly his learning, his wit and his eloquence to his party. We have only one criticism to make of him: that we consider it would have been far better for the country as a whole had this wit and energy and these high talents been devoted more to the general welfare of the country than to the welfare of a section thereof.
We consider also-and I wonder whether the hon. gentleman was not himself thinking of it yesterday-that the country expects a somewhat greater degree of dignity and of poise in its Prime Minister than is shown by the employment of the tactics of a partisan and the adoption of the policy of a guerilla leader. The day before yesterday I noticed that in his remarks there was missing the old fire, the old biting sarcasm, and the result probably was that his speech lacked that enthusiasm which he had been in the habit of communicating to the gentlemen behind him. I noticed, too, that during the course of one of his electoral campaigns this summer, at Sherbrooke, he may have thought it would be well before an audience so distinguished as that which faced him there, to put aside his fighting posture.
Anyway, we read in the news-10 p.m. papers, and it was placarded throughout the land, that this new and courageous leader had come down to the province of Quebec and freely admitted the paternity and his advocacy of the conscription measure and other measures of a similar nature. The trouble was that

the right hon. gentleman, having in mind the thoughts to which I have just alluded, forgot to make the remarks ascribed to him in the press throughout the country-the very remarks for which he received encomiums throughout the West and Ontario. It was freely stated, and it has never been contradicted, that in Sherbrooke the right hon. gentleman made no reference whatever to those matters.
However, I did not intend to go at length into the question of the career of the Prime Minister and of his fitness for the post which he now occupies. I intend tonight to discuss as briefly as I can the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and the consequence of that amendment-the dissolution of Parliament and an appeal to the people.
We have in the House three different schools of thought. We have a number of hon. gentlemen to my left, who believe that in all things and in all matters the members of this House should be the mouthpieces of their constituents, and that in all things and in all matters they should represent with the fidelity of a gramophone the views which at that moment find support in the local riding, altogether irrespective, I am sorry to say, of the general good and the general welfare of the people. The adoption of this theory would make of this House nothing but an assembly of delegates whose mandate would be revocable at will, and those who hold their positions would hold them only by a very precarious tenure, depending entirely upon whatever wind, for good or for evil, was blowing in the constituency.
To the hon. member from Red Deeer (Mr. Michael Clarke) I will say this: he has been for many years, and still is, I think, the guardian in this House of the Gladstonian traditions. He has too much respect for and too much knowledge of the British constitution to share with his colleagues the views which some of them have espoused.
There is another point of view, that held by a number of hon. gentlemen oposite. They adopt a point of view which I might call, although it may offend them, an American one. They take their principles from the American Constitution which states that a government, or a ministry, or a member, or a congressman is elected for a certain term of years and may remain in office for that full term. It is true, having regard for our Constitution and for proper parliamentary practice, they

hold that they depend for the length of time during which they might hold office, on their majority in the House of Commons-In our present political position and if we take into consideration almost every government which has been in power since Confederation, this would really mean nothing more nor less than that the Government could remain in power for their full term unless such purely accidental circumstances as death or appointments to lucrative offices under the Crown had so diminished the numbers of their supporters that they no longer had a majority in the House. In other words, hon. gentlemen opposite hold that their tie to office is to be assimilated to the marriage tie-only to be dissolved by death or the Senate.
There is another point of view, that held by those on this side of the House, who believe in and are followers of Liberal principles. We believe that whilst no temporary outburst of sectional feeling or passing breeze of popular fancy should affect, to the extent of requiring a dissolution, any government strong in the confidence of the saner elements of the population and recently come from the electorate, there is no doubt that a government, to remain in power, must have a steady, constant support from the majority of the people, and that such support must be inspired by the trust which the majority had in that government's programme as outlined before them in an election previously held. We contend that the dictum of Edmund Burke " that the value, spirit and essence of the House of Commons consists in its being the express image of the feeling of the nation " is the proper constitutional standpoint to take. We believe-and I do not think I shall be contradicted by any supporter of the Government-that this House of Commons is not the image of the people of this country; that it d<5es not represent the feelings of the nation; that it represents only a distorted view of the feelings of the nation, and further, that should this House of Commons be dissolved and we be returned before the people, there will be a great and material change in its personnel and composition.
May I glance for the moment at the history of this Government? It was formed, amidst the plaudits of the whole country, by what was said to be the best and most patriotic citizens of Canada, united for one purpose alone, to win the war. I do not wish to quote at any great length from the assertions of my hon. friends opposite, but it was repeated on the platform and in

the press that this was merely a temporary alliance, and that as soon as the ' war was over, the Unionist party would be dissolved into its constituent * parts.
I do not care to say much with regard to the means taken by hon. gentlemen opposite to win the election, except that, owing to their appeal, thousands and tens ol thousands of people throughout the country voted for the Unionist party and for the candidates thereof, people who, under other circumstances, have never had the slightest confidence in either. Having obtained power with a substantial majority, the Government proceeded to exercise this power with an autocracy which has seldom been surpassed in Canadian history. The most priceless, the most cherished rights of the people were trampled upon. Orders in Council were passed and put into force without consultation of Parliament and, in many cases, in direct violation of pledges made and given to the electorate. To every argument that right and justice were being violated and that public decency was being outraged, there was only one answer: "We must win the war.,'
No matter what took place, it was justified with that end in view.
As soon as the war was over, the reaction took place, and the people, who had, up to that time, been most submissive to authority were the first to demand with no uncertain voice that the privileges possessed by them and their ancestors should be returned to them. Though the administration has been growing steadily weaker and its majority in this House has been diminished at almost every division, it was considered wholly right, fair and just that the Government should carry on until such time as demobilization was complete. After demobilization was complete, when every newspaper of any standing in the community, when every man, outside of the House, of any standing admitted that the ministry of Sir Robert Borden and the Unionist party was doomed to an early end to its career, it was suddenly discovered that it might be well to form a new party and, with a new leader, to endeavour to re-establish the dwindling popularity of hon. gentlemen opposite. The new leader thus forced to take over the reins of power was faced with an onerous task. He had to reconstruct the cabinet and renovate the party. Had he been successful in accomplishing this we might have been justified in granting him our suffrages in order that he might retain power.
But what has he done? He has taken three new ministers into his Cabinet. One,
I am sorry to say, was not obliged to face the electors. Had it been otherwise, I am sure that the explanations which he would have given in answer to questions such as were suggested by my hon. friend from Brome would have been highly interesting to his electorate and to the country. The other two went before the people and were elected. These gentlemen are great personal friends of mine and I have no wish to offend them. I wish to congratulate them upon their appointment to office. But may I also say that I congratulate them on their peculiarly good fortune in representing such constituencies, and upon their still greater good fortune in being supporters of a party which could not~without extreme difficulty elect any one else.
Elections have been held in three other constituencies, seats traditionally Tory. In the one, the Government majority was reduced substantially, and in the other two the candidates of the Government met with ignominious defeat, with the result that there has been and is to-day throughout the country a very strong and almost unanimous demand for an election, which demand is joined in not only by the Liberals but by the most bigoted and fanatical supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite. On this question of the by-elections, may I quote a gentleman whose authority I am sure will not be questioned by hon. gentlemen opposite, the Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone at one period of his career, whilst he was Prime Minister, suffered a number of losses in by-elections and we find that he-I am quoting from Gladstone's life-"laid before the Cabinet a pretty full outline of the case as to the *weakness of the Government since the crisis of last March and the increase of that weakness, especially of late, from the unfavourable character of the local indications." I submit that at the present moment in this country there is no doubt whatever about the unfavourable character of the local indications, the local indications being the by-elections held.
But there is something more. There is the unfavourable character of the local indications when we refer to the by-elections not held, when we refer to the badly needed reconstruction of the Cabinet, and the fact that it is impossible or almost impossible for the Government to have new ministers elected. We have heard a great deal of late about reconstruction, and I am reminded of the old homely proverb that in order to skin your rabbit, you must first catch him. Similarly, to reconstruct your

Cabinet, you must first elect your ministers. In studying the history of the British Constitution-and this history, when it is written, is to be found chiefly in the debates of the House of Commons-I find that a situation similar to that which exists here to-day existed in the Old Country not many years ago. In the year 1900 the Empire was engaged in a struggle in South Africa with the Boers. The struggle, though not one which would affect the integrity of the Empire, was sufficient to give cause for considerable uneasiness to the people of England. The English troops had met with some rather severe and unexpected defeats, and generally, the position was not of the happiest. In 1900 the Parliament was dissolved and the electors of England were called upon to elect a new Parliament. The Tory party, true to its principles and its best traditions, went to the country on one issue, and on one issue alone. They waved the flag. They alone were the patriots; others were the enemies of their country, and, as has happened before, the people of England, as were later on another and a better people, were deceived and the Tory party was elected. They dragged .on for some considerable time, until 1905, when we find that the peoplfc of England had become rather tired of this war ministry, and that the representatives of the people in the House were making exactly the same demand on the Government as we are to-day making on this Government! In that connection may I quote, because the circumstances are so similar, from Mr. Asquith? He said:
For let Us remember that when this House was elected in 1900, Lord Salisbury was the Prime Minister.
May I say that in 1900 when the Tory party came into power in England Lord Salisbury was the Prime Minister, but he was succeeded shortly afterwards hy the Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour. So the circumstances were very similar to the situation here. The hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) was in power and he was succeeded by the present Prime Minister. To continue the quotation:
Where is the Ministry and where is the Party that Lord Salisbury left to his successor? The one, the Ministry, has disappeared. Nothing would have surprised the country more in the year 1900 than if they had been told that they were voting for installing on the Treasury Bench th'e gentlemen who at present occupy it.
May I say that nothing would have surprised the people of this country more
-rMr. Power]
than to have been told in 1917 that they were voting to install on the Treasury Bench the hon. gentlemen who now occupy it. He goes on:
' The Ministry has disappeared and! you have to look and search about for most, at any rate, of its more distinguished and experienced members in all sorts of unexpected quarters.
May I call the attention of the House to the fact that exactly the same condition obtains here. The most distinguished and most important members of the ministry are scattered in all sorts of unexpected quarters. Two of them now sit on this side of the House. One of them has even had his title to sit in this House challenged. Another of them has accepted a high position in the gift of the Crown, and still another, and I am sorry for him, has announced publicly that he will support his colleagues, and save them and keep them righteous and godly only when questions of international importance are being discussed. When these questions are not being discussed he leaves his friends to pursue their own course of salvation.


Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY:: I thought it was the other way.


Charles Gavan Power: My respect for the rules
of the House prevented my making the suggestion made by the hon. minister. To continue the quotation:
Where is the party? What has become of the party? The party, as every man 1 am addressing knows, has split and sundered beyond the salving power of any person.
With respect to the party which faced us after the election of 1917, we find a goodly number of the most respectable members sitting on this side of the House. Their independence and their courage have shown the way for them to come across the floor of the House and sit on the side where it is posible to be independent and to be honest in one's opinions on questions of public policy. I could go on quoting at considerable length, but since the hour is growing late I think it would be well to cut my remarks short.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Go on.


Charles Gavan Power: I could refer any hon. gentlemen who are interested in this matter and who wish to obtain constitutional precedents in regard to the question, to the Parliamentary Debates of the British House of Commons for February 1905, wherein they will find ample matter for discussion and for the enlightenment of their minds with reference to the true constitutional

view to be supported in this debate. But in order to show my impartiality and to prove that I am moved only by highest motives in supporting my hon. friend-
I will quote a gentleman whose authority may perhaps be more respected by hon. members oposite, and I will quote him in such a manner that I hardly think the advice which he gives will be ill received. The Rt. Hon. Arthur J. Balfour in February, 1895, referring to the Rosebery Ministry, which had at that time gotten itself into a situation somewhat similar to that of hon. gentlemen opposite, said:
I have never observed in the history of this country that any party of any Government have gained credit from hanging on to office, in the vulgar sense without power and with only the insignia of office, from hanging on to their places when they were deprived' of all real influence on the course of events and when the general trend of public opinion was against them. Under such circumstances the Government may possibly do good administrative work.
Possibly.
It may possibly continue to hold its tenure of office for one month, two months, six months, or even a year or more, but you will never find in the history of this country that this has had the result of increasing the credit of a Government with those on whose favour their fortunes ultimately rest.
You will see that this advice is given in the best interests of hon. gentlemen oposite. But if this were the only result, that their credit in the country would be diminished, I confess that we should not have very much ground for complaint. But by carrying on the course which they are pursuing, the very foundation of parliamentary government is being shaken, and the principles on which this constitution has been founded are being endangered. We then have the right to protest, as we do, in the most emphatic manner possible. I submit that it is useless for hon. gentlemen to carry on any longer. They have lost the confidence of the country. They have lost the confidence of every important body and every important interest in the community. The business community looks with horror on gentlemen who are able to lose $50,000,000 to $75,000,000 every year on the management of railways. Business men stand aghast at the probable cost of that new and useless ornament which we have added to the country's burden, namely, the Mercantile Marine. They are convinced * that it will not be many years before it will equal in deficits the other branch of the service, and that we
shall pay as much for it as for that other ill-fated adventure in public ownership.
With reference to the farming community,
I find it difficult to say anything more than what my hon. friends to my left can say. We know that the farmers have a good deal to say to the Government and the people of the country. With regard to the labouring classes, I have only this to say, that they too are convinced that hon. gentlemen opposite have not the confidence of the people. They are convinced that they are not properly represented by hand-picked gentlemen in another Chamber. They are convinced that if the Lords of the Council only go before the people labour will have that oportunity for which it has been waiting a long time.
Another class of the community about which we heard a great, deal in 1917, something in 1918, something in 1919, but a gradually diminishing amount as the years go on, have been the ex-soldiers, our boys at the front, our boys in the trenches, boys for whom the election was fought and, may I say, boys with whom some of the seats were won. These same boys have a word to say. May I quote from a manifesto issued by Mr. R. B. Maxwell in his official capacity as President of the Great War Veterans' Association, the largest body of organized soldiers in the Dominion of Canada?
Mr. Maxwell says:
Parliament has confessed inability to redeem former pledges and restore to returned soldiers and dependents in a substantial measure the economic advantages they would now enjoy but for war service. Parliament has shown reluctance to offset much "failure by general measures for the improvement of living conditions throughout the country whereby returned soldiers might more easily regain a secure foothold in the national life. Parliament now requires that those who served in the war shall share in the payment of the major portion of the war debt despite the fact that war accumulated wealth remains practically unmolested.
Parliament as at present constituted apparently cannot cope with distressing living conditions which affect not omy the returnen soldiers but the public generally. Parliament has denied to the electors of. Canada any opportunity since 1911 to assert their views upon domestic questions by means of the ballot. Parliament continues to ignore the fact that the demand for a general election does not arise solely from among returned soldiers hut is supported by the vast majority of those who have the interests of the country at heart and who view with alarm the increasing unrest. Parliament has outlived its mandate. The time has arrived for the people to declare themselves on the vital questions of the day. I therefore call upon you in defense of the basic principles upon which this association was founded to assemble in mass meeting with

your fellow citizens and secure without delay an unmistakeable expression of the wishes of the people in regard to the necessity of a general election.
Sir, we have heard the views of the authorized representative of the returned soldiers of Canada, those returned soldiers for whom we were prepared to do so much. I ask the hon. gentleman who said to the soldiers in France, "When you return Canada is yours," to only allow the returned soldiers a chance to vote in Canada -one little chance to exercise that franchise for which they fought. If you will only give them that little chance, if they are only permitted that opportunity, hon. gentlemen opposite will have earned their gratitude. They will have shown for the first time since they came into power that they are really prepared to agree to the wishes of the returned soldiers.
There is another class, and this class I mention last, because in my mind it is the most important. By means of a series of indignities and insults, without parallel even in the days of our earlier history, some hon. gentlemen opposite have alienated the sympathy of a whole province and of a whole race. In order to win victory at the polls a campaign of hate and a propaganda of detraction was launched, which I admit was to a large extent successful, and our province was pointed to as a pariah among the other provinces of Confederation. Experience has taught us that this enforced isolation has not affected us in the slightest degree, and we have not been annihilated or destroyed by the enmity of the central government. On the contrary, since we have been so splendidly isolated we have experienced our best and our most prosperous days. We find that the enmity of our opponents has united us and their offers of friendship will not divide us. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that one of our party has been detached from us, but the day and the hour of the electors of the county of St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville is at hand.
I have this much more to say with regard to that same province. We can forgive and we will do so. We will do so cheerfully as it is one of the precepts of the religion which most of us profess. But we will not forget, and we will never put it in the power of any Government to strike a blow at our prestige and our standing in the community such as has been attempted to be struck by hon. gentlemen opposite. Never again will it be possible for any Government, in order to win an election, to point to us as those Who have

wished to break the Confederation pact. Never again will the people of this country allow hon. gentlemen opposite or their successors to get into office by a campaign of calumny and of detraction such as has been waged. The people of the rest of the Dominion now know that in the province of Quebec there resides a population which is the sanest and most honourable in the whole Dominion, and that in spite of accusations of backwardness and of being priest-ridden, in no part of Canada are the citizens more free or more happy. We live in a province that is free and contented, but if I am to believe the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), the case is far different in our sister province. We are free, contented and happy and we have never been more so than since we have been forced into our splendid isolation.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have shown that the business community are with us with the exception perhaps of some who have been frightened by the voice of the Prime Minister and his satellites when they accused the leader of the Liberal party and his followers of Bolshevist tendencies. The Prime Minister by that accusation may have frightened some of the business community. But there are others, who realize that with the advent to power of members from this side of the House the day of the profiteer and of "special interests" is at an end. Those gentlemen and those interests will,
I am sure, support to their utmost capacity when any election is held, hon. gentlemen opposite.
I have shown that the labour classes are not supporting this Government. I have shown that the agricultural classes are not supporting this Government. I have shown that the returned soldiers far from supporting it are praying only for its dissolution; I have shown that through its own -fault this Government has earned the disdain and contempt of a whole race. Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is nothing further to be said on the question, that there is nobody left to support hon. gentlemen opposite, that they no longer represent and they no longer are the image of the people of this country. I would like in conclusion, if I may be permitted, to quote just two lines of poetry. It is not my habit to quote poetry, but this is so applicable to the situation that I feel I shall be doing a service by giving the quotation on the present occasion:
There is on earth a more auguster thing,
Veiled though it be, than Parliament or King.

And that, Sir, is the public conscience. On this occasion the public conscience has been outraged. The public conscience cries aloud for the hon. members opposite to resign; it cries aloud to this House to vote for the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King), an amendment which would involve a dissolution and would bring those hon. members before the bar of the public opinion of this country.
On the motion of Mr. A. Thompson (Yukon) the debate was ajourned.
On the motion of the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Friday, February 18, 1921.